Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL (By Order)

Adjourned debate on Amendment proposed on consideration, as amended [9th May], further adjourned till Thursday, 19th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Signalman W. Mitchell

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now reached a decision in the case of Signalman William Mitchell, 52a, Main Street, Kingseat, Dunfermline, Fife.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member knows, Signalman Mitchell has been discharged from the Army.

Dr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for his most helpful attitude in this case, but I was a little disturbed by the terms of his letter of 29th April in which he said that Signalman Mitchell is liable to recall. May I have an assurance that his discharge is absolute and that there will be no cat-and-mouse game played with him in this matter?

Mr. Soames: I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. It would depend on the circumstances. But I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will write to him.

Barracks, Lincoln (Land)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will offer to the Lincoln City Council the lease, at a nominal rent, of the land at the Royal Lincolnshire Regiment's barracks on

condition that it is used as playing fields and public gardens and named in such a way as to commemorate the long and happy association between the City and the Regiment which is about to be ended.

Mr. Soames: The baracks will be occupied for about another year, and part may be needed after that for minor units. I sympathise with the hon. Member's suggestion and will bear the interest of the City Council in mind; but if we have land surplus to our needs we are bound to dispose of it by the recognised procedure.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great apprehension in the city that these playing fields will be sold for use as building land? Will he give an undertaking that that will not be done?

Mr. Soames: We shall certainly be in touch with the Lincoln City Council about the future of the land.

Intelligence Corps Depot (Visit by Members)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to arrange the visit by hon. Members to the depot of the Intelligence Corps.

Mr. Soames: The arrangements were made known to hon. Members through the usual channels on 12th April.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that while, so far as he is concerned, the arrangements may have been made known through the usual channels, most hon. Members do not know anything at all about them? Will he ask the usual channels to send out another notice?

Mr. Soames: I am sure that the usual channels will do as they always do—all that is necessary to ensure that hon. Members are made aware of the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Loud-Speaker Equipment

Mr. Tilney: asked the Postmaster-General what steps the Post Office has taken to make available to the public a loud-speaker equipment for the telephone to enable several people to carry on a single telephone conversation.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I am glad to say that I hope to have loud-speaking telephones on the market later this year. I am not yet in a position to announce all the details, but will do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Tilney: Many telephone subscribers, who are tired of being little more than telephone rests for about half the conversation, will be delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend says. May I ask whether the equipment will be sold at a reasonably cheap price?

Mr. Bevins: Yes; there will be three types of equipment, some simple and some rather less simple. My present information is that the rentals will range from about £8 to £20 a year.

Mr. Ness Edwards: May I ask why it has taken all these years to produce this equipment?

Mr. Bevins: It has involved a lot of complicated research, but we are now at the end of the road and we shall have them on the market later this year.

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an appalling suggestion and that telephone conversations last quite long enough as it is?

Mr. Bevins: There is no suggestion that telephone conversations should last longer—

Captain Pilkington: They will.

Mr. Bevins: —but that people ought to be able to listen to telephone conversations without holding the instrument.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Registered Parcels

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General the conditions under which his postal regulations allow a recipient of registered mail to identify his name and address on the package before signing for it.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The Post Office does not undertake to deliver a registered packet to the addressee in person and there are, therefore, no regulations allowing the recipient to identify his name and address on the packet before signing for it.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the Minister mean, therefore, that a person signs for the parcel, whether it is his or not, simply because he has had no opportunity to satisfy himself that the parcel was actually to be delivered at his home? In view of the nature of the reply, may I ask the Minister if this is not a matter that should be reconsidered?

Miss Pike: This matter has been very carefully gone into. I think that the legal situation is quite clear, and is to the general convenience of most people receiving registered parcels.

Parcel (Damage)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will investigate the circumstances under which parcels sent from Cyprus by a serving soldier to his home address in Coatbridge, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, have been delivered to this address in an insecure condition and showing evidence of having been tampered with.

Miss Pike: The hon. Member, I believe, is referring to two greetings cards each enclosed in a box. Detailed inquiry is not possible as neither of the boxes is now available. I can only say that I am very sorry if the cards were damaged in the post, but if they were this must have been purely accidental.

Mr. Dempsey: Could we have an assurance from the Minister that some action will be taken to avoid a repetition? It seems to me that serving soldiers in Cyprus are entitled to the courtesy of having their mail delivered securely?

Miss Pike: This has been very carefully investigated. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not occur again.

Crawley

Mr. Gough: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now establish a sub-post office in the southern part of Crawley to meet the growing and urgent needs of the people in the Southgate neighbourhood.

Miss Pike: There is already a sub-post office in the Southgate neighbourhood of Crawley, and I am sorry that I should not be justified in opening another.

Mr. Gough: Is my hon. Friend aware that there may be a sub-post office in that neighbourhood, but that there many thousands of people still have to walk a very long way? Will she convey to my right hon. Friend a request that perhaps a small delegation may be allowed to see him to discuss this matter further?

Miss Pike: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the head post office was moved in 1959 to a new and better site, which is only about 500 yards away, that the office in the old town centre would be very close to the new head office and would draw a certain amount of business away from it, and that it does serve the area of Southgate as well. I assure him that this has been gone into very carefully. We will, of course, receive a delegation, if my hon. Friend thinks that it is necessary, but we believe that the convenience of the population is well served by the present arrangements.

Mr. Gough: May I ask my hon. Friend, for the purpose of the record, if she does not realise that the new site of the post office is such that old people particularly find it rather difficult to reach it, because they have to cross two very dangerous main thoroughfares, and it is for that reason that I have asked that the matter should be more fully gone into?

Special Stamps

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the names of the British heroes and literati whose centenaries he proposes to celebrate by the issues of special postage stamps, and the principle he will apply to the selection of an appropriate design for each of them.

Miss Pike: We have no such proposals in mind.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that in this branch of culture and initiative, Britain is greatly outstripped by countries as various as Russia, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, and will the Minister take steps to put Britain on the philatelic map and reap a valuable income thereby?

Miss Pike: I think that, as the hon. and learned Member realises, the history of this nation is so rich in heroes and

out literature is so rich in great men that it would be very difficult and very invidious to try to find which heroes to commemorate. I am sure that the hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will agree that " Every craw thinks its ain bird the whitest".

Lochgelly

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the request from the Burgh of Lochgelly for a sub-post office at West End, Lochgelly; and what reply he has sent.

Miss Pike: Yes, Sir. The town clerk has been told that we are sorry that a sub-post office could not be justified.

Dr. Thompson: While I will not abuse the patience of the House by repeating at length the reasons why Lochgelly should have a sub-post office, which have been given in innumerable letters to the Minister, in view of the very strong views of local bodies like the town council, the old-age pensioners' association, the shopkeepers and the Co-operative movement, which are better acquainted with the local conditions than the right hon. Gentleman's Department, may I have an assurance that this matter will be reconsidered?

Miss Pike: This has been very carefully considered. The office is at present in the centre of the town, and in the only shopping centre in the town. It is within half-a-mile of most houses and only three-quarters of a mile from the most distant house, and we do not think that another office is justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Television Advisory Committee (Report)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General when he now expects to receive the report of the Television Advisory Committee on lineage, colour, and the future uses of available channels in Bands III, IV, and V.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to receive the Report of the Television Advisory Council on the technical developments in television which will affect the allocation of the remaining channels in Band III.

Mr. Bevins: I hope that the Committee will report very soon now.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have had this Answer, I think, about every three months over the last five years. Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman ended this dilatoriness and got this report produced? After all, a very great deal depends upon it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an answer really soon.

Mr. Bevins: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not a dilatory customer by nature at all. The Television Advisory Committee met on 27th of last month to consider its final report, and I am quite sure (hat I shall not have to fence much longer.

Future

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now state the composition of the commission to examine the future of broadcasting, and its terms of reference.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Here again is an example of fencing. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give us some information? He has been asked about this many times. Is it not about time that he brought it to finality?

Mr. Bevins: Of course, the future of broadcasting and television is so important to all our people that it is important that we should get the right answer rather than a hasty answer, but I will undertake to take the House into my confidence at the earliest possible date, and I think it will be a very early date.

Mr. Snow: If by that reply the Postmaster-General is in fact saying that the terms of reference have not yet been decided, may I ask him if he will consider including in any eventual terms of reference the safeguarding of the English language, which at present is being jeopardised by the inculcation of international American?

Mr. Bevins: This is one of a host of matters which will be examined.

Sir R. Grimston: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as he will have available the report of his Technical

Advisory Committee, in the opinion of many of us there is no need for another commission?

Mr. Bevins: I am aware of the view of my hon. Friend and many hon. Members of this House, but, of course, my Answer did not say that the commission was being set up.

Commercial Television (Financial Arrangements)

Sir R. Grimston: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from broadcasting programmes referring to the financial arrangements of United Kingdom commercial television organisations.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I understand from the British Broadcasting Corporation that no such programme is in view.

Sir R. Grimston: In view of that reply, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has made any inquiries why the B.B.C. is carrying out an investigation into these matters, as reported, and, if it is not for the production of programmes, is the Corporation in order in spending licence money upon this sort of thing?

Mr. Bevins: When I saw the Press report on this matter, I naturally made some inquiries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The first question to which I addressed my mind was whether this inquiry was within the B.B.C.'s powers. I think it is perfectly clear that the B.B.C. under paragraph (3, x), of its Charter, is entitled—
To do all such things as the Corporation may consider incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the objects 
in the Charter, and those objects include the provision to other bodies of matter for broadcasting and the production of films for broadcasting. As to the propriety of the B.B.C.'s action, I have discussed that with the B.B.C, and the Corporation tells me that it naturally wishes to be well informed about the position of its competitors, and it considers that it is particularly important to have this information in regard to the selling of films to American exhibitors.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not this a case where the right hon. Gentleman's logrolling friends are seeking to protect


commercial television, and will he do nothing to prevent the B.B.C. from discharging its responsibilities under the Charter, as it has done?

Mr. Bevins: I think my hon. Friend was disquieted by the report that appeared in one of the national newspapers, which was, I think and as the House will have seen, later amended in a short official statement later put out by the B.B.C.

Sir R. Grimston: Will my right hon. Friend take note that I object to this accusation of log rolling? If the B.B.C. is doing this simply to build up a case for itself in order to get the available channels, that is not a purpose for which it should be using licence money.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Question suggests that the companies concerned clearly have something which they think ought to be hidden?

Mr. Bevins: It is not for me to answer a supplementary question of that sort. That is not a question for the Postmaster-General at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Chalgrove Airfield

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if the Martin Baker Aircraft Company, Limited, was offered a further lease of Chalgrove Airfield; what was the proposed period of the lease; and what were the reasons given by the company for rejecting a lease;
(2) if the Martin Baker Aircraft Company, Limited, has agreed the basis of valuation of the land at Chalgrove Airfield which it will offer back to the original owners when the company has no further use for the airfield.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): No formal offer to lease Chalgrove airfield was made to Martin Baker, although in discussions with the company the question of a lease was considered.
A short lease would not have given the company sufficient security of tenure in relation to its future work, nor have justified the capital and maintenance expenditure it will have to incur.
On the other hand, a long lease would not have significantly helped the former owners, having regard to the undertaking the company have given, namely to offer the land back to the former owners as agricultural land at the current market price when its work at the airfield comes to an end.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will give some pleasure to the former owners concerned to learn, I think for the first time, that the company will be prepared to offer the land back at its agricultural value at the date of valuation?

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend's reply to a recent Adjournment debate was quite unusually unsatisfactory and that there are several disquieting features in this case which only a public inquiry could satisfy?

Mr. Ward: Much of the trouble about the Adjournment debate was that my hon. Friend was left only a very few minutes in which to reply—I am making no criticism—and did not have a chance to deploy his case fully. On the question of a public inquiry, he and another Minister have already twice visited Chalgrove. This matter has been considered by Ministers at every stage, and we are fully informed about all the details.

Early Warning Station, Fylingdales

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the designs for the various buildings of the Fylingdales early warning station have been or will be submitted for the approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission; and if he will inform the House of the Commission's opinion of them.

Mr. Ward: The Royal Fine Art Commission was sent an outline of the proposed development including a description of the technical buildings. The Commission's comments did not include any observations on the buildings themselves. It was of course aware that we were discussing details with the Park Planning Committee, which is the local planning authority for the area, and the National Parks Commission. These bodies have already approved in principle our proposals for siting, layout, design and treatment of buildings.

Mr. Driberg: Is it correct, as stated by one of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends, that the main structure will consist of three enormous balls? If these balls are as large as they are reported to be going to be, is not any assurance about landscaping and all that rather superfluous and, indeed, hypocritical.

Mr. Ward: No. These balls, or radomes as they are called, are large, but we have offered to paint them any colour which we are asked to paint them so that they blend in with the landscape, and we are employing a landscape consultant to advise us.

Mr. Driberg: How large are these balls?

Mr. Ward: I do not have that figure without notice.

Mr. de Freitas: Will these balls be painted different colours at different times of the year so that they blend in with the vegetation?

Mr. Ward: That would no doubt be covered in the discussions which we are having with our professional consultant.

South Uist (Blue Steel)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what use has been made of Royal Air Force, South Uist, for training aircrew in the use of Blue Steel.

Mr. Ward: None, Sir.

Exercise, North Africa (Prestwick Aircraft)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Prestwick aircraft were used in connection with the exercise Starlight recently held in North Africa; and whether he is satisfied as to their general efficiency.

Mr. Ward: Six single-engined and two Twin Pioneers took part in Exercise Starlight. They performed the tasks allotted to them very satisfactorily.

Sir T. Moore: While I am grateful, I am not surprised by that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received information from an officer who took part in this exercise saying that these machines gave outstanding service during the course of the operation? That being the case, will not my right hon.

Friend consider ordering more of these machines for use in the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Ward: I agree that they have given excellent service, and we have just ordered three more. However, frankly, I do not foresee the need for further Pioneers for the Royal Air Force because, although we are expanding our short-range transport force, we are bringing in rather different types of aircraft, as my hon. Friend knows, such as the Rotodyne and the new helicopters.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that, whereas some of the small conventional aircraft are air-transportable, the Rotodyne is not so transportable? Is not that an important consideration?

Mr. Ward: The Rotodyne is "ferry-able", if that is a word.

Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman say over what territories this exercise took place and whether the consent of the Governments of those territories was secured for this purpose?

Mr. Ward: I do not think that that arises out of this Question.

Aerial Reconnaissance (Soviet Territory)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if he will give instructions to the Royal Air Force that no reconnaissance aircraft shall fly over Russian territory;
(2) to what extent there is cooperation between the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force for the purpose of obtaining photographic information about Russian air and military bases.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air what consultations he has had with the United States Strategic Command concerning flights by aeroplanes based in the United Kingdom over Soviet territory for purposes of espionage.

Mr. Ward: As the House knows, it has never been the practice to disclose either the nature or the scope of Intelligence activities. In my judgment, it would be contrary to the public interest for me to make any exception to this practice.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most important thing today is to relieve world tension? Is he aware of reports that the Governments of Norway, Japan and Pakistan are submitting to the United States Government their view of the importance that these reconnaisance flights should not be carried out from their territories? Does he not think that the public interest would be better served if the public were assured that these matters will not have very grave implications for the safety of the people of this country against attacks by bombers or bombs against which there is no defence?

Mr. Ward: If the hon. Member thinks that we should discuss matters of military intelligence in the House, I do not agree with him.

Mr. Swingler: In view of what has been revealed by this incident and the dangers contained therein, are not the people of this country entitled to know about something which might be very much contrary to the public interest, because it might involve the people of this country being blown up? Surely the public is entitled to know, for example, whether the reports in today's Press are accurate, that the R.A.F. was participating in these activities until twelve months ago, when the Prime Minister is said to have countermanded the order and stopped them. Are we not entitled to know what consultations there are about the uses of American bases on British soil, which might involve retaliatory action against those American bases on British soil—activities for which the Americans take responsibility?

Mr. Ward: It has long been the accepted practice of successive Governments from both sides of the House that matters of this kind are not discussed in public, and I see no reason for departing from that practice.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend able to assure the House that, in conjunction with the other Services, the R.A.F. will continue to discharge the responsibilities laid upon it to make sure that this country is not surprised by any untoward attack?

Mr. Hilton: Will the Minister agree that this is a matter of very grave

concern, especially to those of us who live in areas near American air bases in view of the report that Mr. Khrushchev has said that Russia may retaliate against the bases from which these planes fly? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no planes from bases in this country will be used for spying on Russia or any other country?

Mr. Ward: I am not confirming or denying anything. All I am doing, with great respect, is refusing to answer these questions.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in reply to a similar Question yesterday, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the Government did not think that they would suspend patrol flights, even during the Summit Conference? As a token of Britain's earnest hope for the success of the Summit Conference, could not the Government cease these silly flights now and during the Conference?

Mr. Ward: I have made my position perfectly clear and I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Classified Roads, Shrewsbury (Improvement)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give an assurance that money will be provided for grants for the improvement of classified roads in the Frankwell district of Shrewsbury, to coincide with the programme of slum clearance and redevelopment which the council is carrying out.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): If we receive an application for grant it will of course be considered, but, without the necessary details, I cannot say if it would find a place in our programme. I regret I am therefore unable to give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the present rules which his Ministry applies, whole areas in the part of the town mentioned are neutralised for long periods and that that


makes the local authority look ridiculous when it is not its fault but the fault of the ridiculous rules in my hon. Friend's Ministry?

Mr. Hay: The local authority has told us in general terms that it wishes to bring these schemes forward. We have asked it to let us have the fuller details and the financial details. When the local authority does that, we will certainly consider the matter.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Am I to understand from that reply that when the local authority makes specific application there will be nothing in the Ministry which will bar it from receiving this land, either for building or for the purposes of a road?

Mr. Hay: I think that supplementary question rests on the next Question by hon. Friend has on the Order Paper.

Road Improvements (Land)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that his decision, that his agreement in advance that the cost of acquisition of land or property will rank for grant when such land is incorporated in a highway improvement is conditional upon the land not being included in the highway before he gives his approval for the scheme, has had the effect of neutralising these areas so that they cannot be used for some years pending his approval, the costs of fencing off and loan interests being borne by the local authority; and whether he will ensure that his grant is payable at the time when his agreement to the acquisition is given.

Mr. Hay: I realise that highway authorities may not in every case be able to find an interim use for land which they acquire for a road improvement scheme in advance of approval of the scheme, though in practice some good short-term use can often be found. As to the second part of the Question, we must continue to devote sums at our disposal for grant purposes to urgent schemes which can be put in hand at once, rather than to the cost of land for schemes which it may not be possible to carry out for some time.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very seldom an occasion on which a local authority can

put to good use an area which amounts mostly to flat rubble on the side of a road? Would it not be much more economical in the long run to make sure that the material is incorporated in the highway, which probably would be the cheapest form of dealing with it?

Mr. Hay: I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend. Our experience is that in the great majority of cases land held for future road work is employed for useful purposes. Sometimes it is let on a short lease, sometimes it is used for amenity purposes such as parkland and so on. On the whole, the system works very well.

Oxford Road, Reading (Member's Letter)

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Transport when he will send an answer to the hon. Member for Reading to a letter dated 24th November, 1959, dealing with the need for push button pedestrian crossing lights to be installed in the Oxford Road, Reading.

Mr. Hay: I have written to my hon. Friend explaining the difficulties we have met in trying to reach a satisfactory answer to this problem.

Mr. Emery: While realising that the letter received from my hon. Friend was stimulated by this Question, may I ask if he realises that there have been 196 accidents on this stretch of road in eighteen months and that in the six months since I wrote to him the number of accidents has increased and is increasing? Will he show some greater speed in dealing with this problem than we have seen during the last six months?

Mr. Hay: We are very well aware of the difficult conditions of this stretch of road. To make the necessary progress in the matter, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, we felt it necessary to obtain some up-to-date figures of the numbers of vehicles and pedestrians. That information has only just been received from the local authority. We are examining it now as a matter of urgency.

London-Birmingham Motorway

Mr. Leavey: asked the Minister of Transport the total acreage taken up by the M.1; and what proportion has been laid down to grass or young plantations.

Mr. Hay: This motorway covers about 2,000 acres of land in all. About 51 per cent. of this area is occupied by features of the motorway which do not require to be paved, such as the cuttings, embankments, and the central reservation. These have been grassed or planted to harmonise with the surrounding countryside. A further 3 per cent. of the total area is being used solely for landscaping purposes, mainly with young plantations.

Mr. Leavey: In view of the very considerable acreage that is laid down to grass on verges, can my hon. Friend say what general arrangements have been made to keep them tidy, and in particular what arrangements have been made to collect the hay harvest which will he available shortly?

Mr. Hay: With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, the fact is that the areas put down to grass in this way are of such a character that I do not think we could expect to get much of a crop of hay from them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down the first part of his supplementary question as a Question on the Order Paper.

London-Yorkshire Motorway

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport if a commencement date has now been fixed for the West Riding section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. We are considering the objections to the draft scheme for the motorway from Crick to the Doncaster By-pass. The proposals by the local authorities for the further extension of the motorway to Sheffield and Leeds are being examined. It will inevitably take some time to complete the statutory processes. It is therefore too early to fix starting dates for either of these schemes.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that there has been far too much procrastination about the construction of the Yorkshire Motorway? Will he bear in mind how important the decision will be, not only to Yorkshire but to the North-West, and that at the moment thousands of pounds' worth of road-making machinery is lying idle?

Mr. Hay: I think that is a little hard. As I said in the first part of my reply,

we have to go through the process of considering objections made to the draft scheme. We are pressing on with that as quickly as we can. We have no interest in delaying these schemes.

Mr. Wade: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate how long the construction of the West Riding section will take from the date on which it is started?

Mr. Hay: No, I cannot do that without notice.

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Transport if he will invite the West Riding County Council to act as agents on behalf of his Department for the building of the West Riding section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport what decision he has reached concerning the appointing of consultants to be responsible for the construction of the Yorkshire section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.

Mr. Hay: The West Riding County Council has recently made representations to us that it should become our agent for the detailed preparation and supervision of the construction of the extension of the motorway to Sheffield and Leeds. These representations are still under consideration.
As regards the motorway from Crick to the Doncaster By-pass, consulting engineers have already prepared a draft scheme. In accordance with our general policy, it is our intention that the further detailed preparation and the subsequent supervision of construction should also be undertaken by consulting engineers.

Mr. Wainwright: I am shocked to hear that reply. Is not the hon. Member aware that the West Riding County Council has already carried out 51 miles of road building as his agent at a cost of about £17 million and that the work has been done satisfactorily? Will not he therefore take into consideration, or ask his right hon. Friend so to do, the work which has been done by the West Riding County Council to make certain that this authority is not pushed on one side for private enterprise?

Mr. Hay: There is no question of the West Riding County Council being pushed aside. It already has a heavy programme on its hands. It is now


supervising its thirteen-mile share of the Doncaster by-pass and some fourteen large A-road schemes. I do not think it can be said that the authority is not being given some work to do. As for the general policy, it is my right hon. Friend's decision that schemes which traverse the area of more than one county council highway authority should in general be carried out by consulting engineers.

Mr. Roberts: What does the hon. Gentleman hope to gain from such a policy? Will he bear in mind that the West Riding County Council has already carried out a large amount of preliminary work and has all the technical staff to deal with all the aspects of major road construction?

Mr. Hay: We are well aware of these views held by highway authorities. The great advantage of using a consulting engineer in cases of this kind is unification of control of the whole job. That is an extremely powerful factor for us to have in our support.

Traffic Congestion

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the cost of road congestion amounts to an annual figure of about £500 million, and that it is increasing at the rate of £150 million a year; and if he will state the steps he is taking to reduce this drain on the nation's economy.

Mr. Hay: The road programme and the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill at present before the House are designed to combat congestion the consequences of which in both safety and cost I appreciate. I am bound to say I do not however necessarily accept the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware that he is placing more confidence on the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Bill in this matter than is placed by most people concerned? Is he not aware that roads are becoming hopelessly overcrowded, particularly with long distance freightage traffic, while the railways are very well able to cater for that type of traffic? Would it not be in the national interest for more of that traffic to be diverted from road to rail

in the interests of motorists and everyone concerned? What does he think the picture will be in a few years' time if industry and he do not do something more drastic about the diversion of traffic from road to rail?

Mr. Hay: I regard that as a counsel of despair. What we have to do is to provide in this country an up-to-date network of road communications. We are doing our utmost to ensure that we press on with the road programme as quickly as possible. The Bill, about which we are far more optimistic than is the hon. Member, will put some valuable additional powers into my right hon. Friend's hands to deal with congestion in the towns. I think that this is far better than trying artificially to divert road traffic from road to rail.

Mr. Benn: What consultations have the hon. Gentleman and the Minister had with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders about the number of cars likely to come on to the roads in the next few years? Secondly, may we have a White Paper which sets out the Government's plans more than a few months ahead? At the moment, hon. Members who axe trying to follow this subject have to content themselves with a flood of individual Press releases from the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Hay: We are in regular touch with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and the society gives us its views as to the future numbers of vehicles coming on to the roads. I will bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the suggestion about a White Paper.

Park Lane Improvement Scheme

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the Park Lane improvement scheme will be completed in less than twenty-eight months.

Mr. Hay: The programme for the scheme has been worked out very carefully by the London County Council, which is responsible for carrying it out. Its plans have been prepared in consultation with my Department, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Works, the Metropolitan police, the contractor and other bodies concerned.
Parts of the scheme will be open to traffic as they are finished, but I am satisfied that, if traffic is to be kept moving while work is in progress, twenty-eight months is the best possible time that can be achieved for the completion of the whole scheme.

Mr. Driberg: Since the hon. Member's Department clearly has some responsibility in this matter, cannot he look at this again? Presumably night working would be very expensive. Is there to be any of it? Will he bear in mind the enormous cost, in time and trade and temper, of this extraordinarily long-drawn-out dislocation?

Mr. Hay: I fully understand the hon. Member's views. They were the views which I held when I first heard about this. I have personally looked very closely into the plans. The difficulty is that we are dealing here with two of the busiest junctions in the country. Hyde Park Corner carries over 100,000 vehicles a day and Marble Arch is the third busiest junction in the country. We have to keep these traffic lanes open. As for the possibility of night work, we must remember that at Hyde Park Corner there is St. George's Hospital, and for that reason we have been obliged to ban any work between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in the interests of the patients. I am afraid that there is nothing we can do to speed this scheme, much as we should like to do so.

Mr. Lindsay: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that a great part of this work is a long way from St. George's Hospital, for example that at the Marble Arch end? Even if there is no work near the St. George's Hospital end after 11 p.m.— which we can understand—will he at least assure us that at any rate work will be carried on during Saturdays and Sundays and at night where it is out of earshot of St. George's Hospital?

Mr. Hay: The difficulty is that the key to this scheme is the underpass along Piccadilly, and that is very close to St. George's Hospital. I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of the London County Council, which is responsible for this scheme, tout I am not very sure that it will be able to carry it through.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that many people believe that such

schemes as the Hyde Park Corner scheme are not the right things to do in this day and age? Is he aware that if we are to have road improvements of this character, they ought to be on a much wider and broader plan, not the sort of scheme which, although it might relieve traffic congestion at one point, does not solve the problem in the areas from which traffic comes and into which it goes from that point? Is the Minister aware that in America such schemes in the heart of a city have been abandoned?

Mr. Hay: There is a strange duality of view in the Labour Party on these matters. If that is the hon. Member's view, I must point out to him that some of his hon. Friends are always pressing us to do more of these road improvement schemes.

Gower Street-Hampstead Road, London (Traffic Lights)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the provision of traffic lights at the junction of Gower Street and Hampstead Road, London.

Mr. Hay: The St. Pancras Metropolitan Borough Council, which is the highway authority, is about to invite tenders for the provision of traffic light signals at this junction.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister aware that I first raised this matter in 1957 and that in February, 1959, his predecessor said that the accident rate at this junction was rising? I was told towards the end of last year that the lights would be installed. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that it takes three years to have traffic lights installed in an important street in London?

Mr. Hay: In this case, yes. The timing of the project appears to have been influenced largely by considerations of finance. The St. Pancras Borough Council allocated the project to 1960–61 and was not at all responsive to our pleas Chat it should be brought forward. The responsibility, therefore, does not rest with us.

Abingdon Street, London (Bus Stop)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether, for the convenience of persons visiting Parliament and of


hon. Members, he will request the Bus Stopping Places Advisory Committee to consider the provision of a stopping place outside St. Stephen's Entrance for buses which pass along Abingdon Street.

Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Janner: I am very pleased to hear that the Minister is taking note of that point. Would he please expedite the inquiry into it, because it is a very serious nuisance for many people who come in buses to the House when they have to stop either a considerable distance from the House or far away on the other side of the road?

Mr. Hay: I hoped that my short and hopeful Answer would draw an equally short and hopeful response from the hon. Member.

Road Safety

Sir J. Smyth: asked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of road safety, he will take steps to remove unsuitable vehicles from roads within his responsibility.

Mr. Hay: The enforcement of the law is a matter for the police. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular type of vehicle in mind, and will let me have details, I will see whether anything can be done.

Sir J. Smyth: Will my hon. Friend remember that about 11,000 very seriously disabled men and women are at present being forced by Government regulations to travel on our crowded and rather dangerous roads alone in single-seater vehicles? Will he urge his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health to press on with the scheme for replacing these admittedly very unsuitable vehicles by some form of two-seater vehicles which would enable these very seriously disabled people to take a passenger with them?

Mr. Hay: That goes a little wide of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities, as I expect that my hon. and gallant Friend realises, but I will certainly see that what my hon. and gallant Friend has said is brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Accidents (Prosecutions)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport for how many years he has received police analyses of the motor accidents on which prosecutions have been initiated in the courts of summary jurisdiction.

Mr. Hay: Particulars of individual road accidents involving personal injury have been reported by the police to my Department since 1949. These reports do not distinguish accidents as a result of which proceedings were taken.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend have a look at the recent analysis published in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which gives a very great deal of detail about the accidents on which police prosecutions have been taken? Will he bear in mind that I am rather inclined to think that, in relation to road accidents, all the emphasis on learner drivers and old cars, etc., begs the question and that a very much more detailed examination of the reasons for accidents would serve the purpose of my right hon. Friend much better than the present system?

Mr. Hay: Yes. I very largely agree with what my hon. Friend said in the second part of her supplementary question. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister is seeking to have a detailed investigation made of all the Christmas road accidents so that we can, if possible, learn some useful and constructive lessons from them. That is something about which I hope that we shall be hearing before very long.

Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Road Research Laboratory, which has the greatest experts on the factors leading to road accidents, is brought into the analysis of figures by the police forces so that a really accurate indication of the causes is made available to the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Hay: No, I do not think that it is, but I will inquire into that and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Popplewell: When the Minister completes his research, will he publish the figures and results?

Mr. Hay: We will give consideration to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Transport Users' Consultative Committees

Mr. Leavey: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to enable him to exercise wider powers in relation to area transport users' consultative committees.

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. We do not for the present propose to introduce legislation to alter the powers of these committees.

Mr. Leavey: As a number of recommendations are being made for the closure of stations, while the whole question of the railway organisation is now in the melting-pot, would it not be desirable for my right hon. Friend to make a general recommendation that those considerations should be held in abeyance until the over-all policy is made clear? Is it not undesirable that there should be these piecemeal closures when, perhaps at a reasonably short-distant time in the future, those decisions will require to be reversed in keeping with a national decision?

Mr. Hay: I rather doubt whether the assumption my hon. Friend makes from the review which is being carried out by the planning, or advisory, group is justified. Certainly we must remember that in the current year £90 million is having to be found in direct subsidy for the B.T.C. I do not think we should lose any opportunities for useful economies, provided they can be properly made.

Mr. Jennings: Is my hon. Friend aware that 93·5 per cent. of the cases brought for consideration before the consultative committees have been found in favour of the British Transport Commission? Is he aware that in at least one case I have given him irrefutable evidence that the decision was forestalled by the British Transport Commission by at least two months? He is now investigating another case—that of the famous "Tutbury Jinnie", which I brought to his notice a few nights ago. Will he agree that now the whole procedure of the transport users' consultative committees is a complete farce so far as consumer protection is concerned?

Mr. Hay: No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with all those assumptions made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Popplewell: Would the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the very useful work which the transport users' consultative committees have been doing and are doing? At the same time, would he have another look at the financial situation? At present the British Transport Commission has to bear the whole of the cost of the work of the committees. Might it not be to advantage and win more confidence among the general public if the cost of staffing and working these committees were borne from other sources than the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Hay: In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I have answered a number of Adjournment debates in this House about the working of the committees, and I believe that on every occasion I have paid warm tribute to the work they are doing. I repeat that tribute this afternoon. I shall look into the second part of the supplementary question, about finance, but I am not very hopeful of being able to change the present practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Wreck, Brancaster Bay (Danger to Fishermen)

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the danger to the fishermen of Brancaster from the wreck originally sunk as a target in the channel there; why the marking of the wreck with buoys was discontinued; why he sold the wreck as scrap and subsequently failed to insist on the purchasers fulfilling their obligation to remove it; and whether he will now have the wreck removed.

Mr. Hay: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the wreck of the "Vina" in Brancaster Bay, about which he has written to my right hon. Friend.
Its marking was discontinued in April, 1959, when the buoy previously provided by the Air Ministry broke away.
The wreck was, however, sold by my Department in 1957 and it was resold in May, 1959. I am advised that responsibility for the wreck and for taking reasonable measures to ensure the safety of other vessels lies with its present owner.
I am aware that there have been complaints that this wreck may be a danger to fishermen and we are in communication with the owner and Trinity House with a view to an early solution of this matter.

Mr. Bullard: Was it not rather a mistake to sell this wreck to a scrap merchant who had not facilities for marking it or perhaps even for removing it? Will my hon. Friend make amends by having the wreck cleared out of the channel at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I am giving personal attention to this matter, about which I have been concerned for some time. I hope that we shall be able to clear it before long.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Armed Forces (Coal Miners)

Mr. Pentland: asked the Minister of Defence how many men of 18 to 25 years of age, whose previous occupation was in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain, have joined Her Majesty's Forces during the years 1957,1958, 1959, and to the latest available date in 1960, stating each year and each divisional

The information required, in so far as it is possible to identify recruits as having been employed in the coal-mining industry and drawn from a particular divisional area, is given below. The figures for 1957 exclude the R.A.F. because the relevant records have been destroyed.


National Coal Board Division
1957
1958
1959
1960 (Up to 31st March)


Northern
…
…
…
206
320
335
62


Durham
…
…
…
222
535
498
88


North Eastern
…
…
…
177
281
241
57


North Western
…
…
…
228
315
243
37


East Midlands
…
…
…
335
555
506
100


West Midlands
…
…
…
222
370
246
43


Southwestern
…
…
…
252
512
506
51


South Eastern
…
…
…
37
71
41
19


Scotland
…
…
…
329
513
689
167

MIDDLE EAST (LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he made at the recent meeting of the Council of the Central Treaty Organisation to seek agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and other interested powers, on the limitation of armaments in the Middle East.

area of the National Coal Board separately.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): As the Answer consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Pentland: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures, when published, will show a very marked increase in the number of young miners who have left the coal fields in these years to join Her Majesty's Forces? While, appreciating that miners make first-class Service men and also that they have left the coal fields because of a profound sense of insecurity in their jobs, may I ask him to consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to see what can be done to halt this drift away to the Armed Forces, otherwise we will have serious manpower problems in the coal fields in the very near future?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that some of the areas do show a considerable increase. Others do not show so much. I should like to echo his words that these fine men are very welcome indeed in Her Majesty's Services, and I will certainly take note of what he says about the coalmining industry itself.

Following is the information:

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby Gore): None, Sir. The general question of disarmament was, however, discussed and the Council expressed the hope that real progress would be made at the Ten Power Conference.

Mr. Healey: As Her Majesty's Government are already committed to try to limit armaments in the Middle East


without Soviet help by the Tripartite Agreement, and as in the Prime Minister's communiqué with Mr. Khrushchev last year he agreed to try to limit armaments in Europe with Soviet agreement, why on earth are the Government so unwilling to try to seek to explore this possibility as regards the Middle East?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: We think it more important to make progress on general disarmament. I think that the hon. Member asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a rather similar Question the other day, and my right hon. Friend said that he was bearing the hon. Member's suggestions in mind.

Mr. Healey: In that case, will the Minister of State ask the Prime Minister to raise the question at the Summit Conference?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on the previous occasion.

FRANCE (DEPORTATION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the French Government about the deportation from France of British citizens who marched from Aldermaston to Calais via London with the intention of proceeding to Paris to represent to the Summit Conference their views on nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Ormsby Gore: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 9th May.

Mr. Swingler: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman say why no protest was made in this case? Does not the Foreign Office represent British citizens abroad any more? What was the misdemeanour which these well-intentioned young men and women were supposed to have committed? Why were they not entitled to proceed, or is there no longer any democracy on that side of the Channel?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: I anticipated that there might be some Questions on this subject, and the British Consul at Lille

was instructed to ask the authorities for a precise account of what happened. Perhaps I can let the House know what that report is. According to his report, the group held a demonstration with banners on the evening of 30th April. The local Commissaire de Police informed them that demonstrations were not permitted without a licence, requested them to disperse, and took away their banners. He asked them to call on him on the morning of 1st May. In the course of this call, it emerged that the group were in possession of 5,000 leaflets and numerous documents. The police thereupon confiscated the documents and pamphlets and undertook to consult higher authority before giving them further instructions. On the morning of 2nd May, the Commissaire informed the group that they must return to the United Kingdom. This they agreed to do and returned to the boat without any police escort. At no time did they ask for the assistance of Her Majesty's representative.

Mr. Swingler: I still ask: what was the good democratic reason why these young folks should not make the demonstration they intended to make? Was the literature seditious? What was wrong with it?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is clearly not a matter for which the Minister is responsible.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not perhaps be fair to add that in this country these young people might have been sent to six months' imprisonment rather than just be asked to go away?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: That is nothing to do with the Foreign Office.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries to find out why these people, whose banners had been taken away, whose leaflets and pamphlets had been confiscated, and who thereafter merely desired to walk along the French roads to Paris without their banners, leaflets and propaganda, were requested then to return to this country?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: As I understand it, the French authorities regard that as a demonstration, and a demonstration without a licence is illegal.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations Her Majesty's Government's representative at the Geneva talks on the testing of nuclear weapons had with the representative of the United States Government before that Government announced their decision to carry out an independent series of underground nuclear tests; and, in view of the damage this decision has inflicted on the prospects of agreement being reached at Geneva, what representations were made by Her Majesty's Government in opposition to the proposed tests.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the Geneva Conference on Nuclear Tests that all tests carried out for the purpose of establishing that small underground tests can be controlled are to be jointly organised and carried out by the three Governments.

Mr. Ormsby Gore: The declaration issued by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower after their meeting at Camp David in March called for an agreed programme of coordinated scientific research to solve the problems of detecting small underground nuclear tests. Scientists from the three countries taking part in the Nuclear Tests Conference are joining the delegations now in Geneva today to assist in working out details of this programme. The Soviet Union have accepted that a limited number of nuclear explosions can form part of this programme, but the procedure for conducting these will have to be agreed when the scientists meet.
On 7th May the United States made an announcement indicating the scope of their contribution to such a research programme, and I will arrange for the full text to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
We were already aware of the United States' proposals and their nature has been explained to the Soviet delegation at the Geneva Conference. I do not accept that this decision could cause damage to the prospects of agreement as suggested by the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that what the Soviet Union and the other Powers had agreed to were joint tests for this

purpose? That being so, is it not to say the least very extraordinary that the United States Government should have made this unilateral announcement before there had been these further consultations among the Powers as to the exact form these joint tests should take? Is not this likely to arouse suspicions and alarm on the Soviet side and damage the prospects of agreed disarmament?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: No. If one is going to announce what contribution one intends to make to a programme of research of this kind, it is very difficult to do it except unilaterally. This is what the United States contribution is to be, and I have explained that the actual procedure by which the United States carry out these tests has to be agreed with the scientists of the other two countries in Geneva.

Mr. Healey: Is not the Minister, no doubt unwittingly, misleading the House? Surely, the agreement at Geneva was that any tests carried out in connection with this joint programme of research should be tests carried out in common by the three Governments concerned. Can the Minister assure the House that the American Government do not propose to carry out tests independently, and without the presence and participation of the representatives of the British and Soviet Governments?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: These are precisely the matters that the scientists are meeting at Geneva to work out. All I can tell the House is that the President of the United States set out the policy of the United States Administration when he said there was to be an agreed programme of co-ordinated scientific research—an agreed programme. That appears in the declaration issued after the Camp David talks, and as far as we know the American Administration will abide by that declaration.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit on what is a vitally important point? Is it Her Majesty's Government's opinion that these tests that were announced, suddenly and surprisingly, by the American Government are tests in which Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government will participate? If that is not the case, how are they to be reconciled with the moratorium which, in


principle, has been agreed by all three Governments?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: What I would certainly say is that the procedure under which these tests are carried out must be such as to give assurance to the other countries concerned that no military advantage can accrue to the United States Government by the carrying out of the tests.

Mr. Gaitskell: That is a totally different matter. Is it not the case that under the moratorium proposals the only tests to be carried out would be underground tests for the purpose of discovering better methods of detection, and tests in which all three Governments participated? Would the Minister of State confirm that that is, in effect, the intention of the Camp David announcement? Would he also indicate clearly whether the moratorium applies to all tests, or only to tests carried out for military purposes?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: Again, the precise details of the moratorium are the subject of the negotiations now going on in Geneva. All the policy that has been laid down is that contained in the announcement made after the Camp David talks. The precise arrangement under which one assures the other countries concerned that in the explosion of an underground nuclear test one is not gaining any military advantage is a subject that really only scientists can settle. It is an extremely complicated problem. That is why the scientists are meeting in Geneva today—to discuss this very procedure.

Mr. Healey: Is it not appallingly clear that the right hon. Gentleman has not the slightest idea of what the President meant when he made this announcement? Is it not a most unacceptable situation that the United States should unilaterally take a decision that affects a declaration of principle made with Britain and the Soviet Union without previously consulting the British Government and explaining what it means?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: No, I think that I can understand what the President meant when he made his declaration just as well as can the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mrs. Castle: Have not the United States Government anticipated the dis-

cussions that ought to have settled this matter and, by so anticipating them, have damaged the very hopeful prospects of a nuclear test agreement? In view of that, will not Her Majesty's Government indicate to the United States Government that we totally deplore this kind of unilateral action and do not think it at all furthers the cause of disarmament?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: No unilateral action has taken place. The United States Government have announced what their contribution to a co-ordinated programme of research would be. That is what they have announced. It has been explained to the Soviet delegation in Geneva, whose members, I am bound to say, did not have the same reaction to it as has the hon. Lady.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this in Question and Answer.

Following is the announcement:

WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT OF MAY 7, 1960

The President today announced approval of a major expansion of the present research and development directed toward an improved capability to detect and identify underground nuclear explosions. The present United States programme has evolved from the recommendations set forth by the panel of seismic improvement ("Berkner panel"). For fiscal year 60, it has been funded for approximately dollars 10,000,000. During fiscal year 61, it is anticipated that the funds required will be about dollars 66 million for all aspects of the seismic research and development programme.

Known as project Vela, the programme calls for increased basic research, in seismology, procurement of instruments for a world-wide seismic research programme, development of improved seismic instruments, construction and operation of prototype seismic detection stations, and an experimental programme of underground detonations encompassing both high explosive and where necessary nuclear explosions. The planned programme provides for investigation of all aspects of improvement that are considered to be feasible.

Such nuclear explosions as are essential to a full understanding of both the capabilities of the presently proposed detection system and the potential for improvements in this system would be carried out under fully contained conditions and would produce no radioactive fall-out. In order to develop sufficient reliable data from the programme, it is anticipated that it will be necessary to conduct a series of explosions of various sizes, in different types of geological formations.

Recently, the Soviet negotiators at Geneva concurred with the proposal that underground nuclear explosions should be conducted to improve the capability of the proposed control network to detect and identify underground explosions.

They have also indicated a willingness to discuss research and development in the seismic detection area with the United States and the United Kingdom. Agreement has been reached to convene a group of U.S.S.R., United Kingdom and United States scientists in Geneva on May 11 to exchange information on the seismic research activities of the three nations as a basis for future determination of the areas in which co-ordinated or joint research would be most fruitful.

Government agencies including the Department of Defence, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Interior, as well as universities and private organisations, will participate in carrying out the United States programme of research and development related to the detection and identification of nuclear detonations.

AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE (SOVIET TERRITORY)

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of drawing attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government, on the eve of the Summit Conference, to give an assurance that the Royal Air Force will not undertake aerial reconnaissance involving the violation of Soviet territory.
I submit that this is an urgent matter, Sir, because we are on the eve of the Summit Conference. It is quite true that tomorrow the House is to debate foreign policy on what I believe are wider issues, but I submit that this present matter is more urgent than the business that is likely to come before the House this afternoon. Although hon. Members on both sides regard the Betting and Gaming Bill as of supreme importance, I believe that this issue is more important than that Bill; and that the right to live is more important than the right to bet.
I submit that this is a matter of definite urgent public importance because the dramatic incident that has been reported has caused various other Governments to take immediate action, and today's Press reports that the Governments of Norway, Japan and Pakistan are urging on the United States the immediate necessity of abandoning these reconnaissance flights which involve so much danger to the world.
In my submission, it is certainly of definite public importance to everyone in this country when, in these days, events move at catastrophic speed, and, as General de Gaulle recently told us in Westminster Hall, we might be faced with instantaneous destruction. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I submit that I am justified in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to bring his Motion to me?

Copy of Motion handed in.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of drawing attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government, on the eve of the Summit Conference, to give an assurance that the Royal Air Force will not undertake aerial reconnaissance involving the violation of Soviet territory.
It is not in my power, in accordance with precedent, to accede to the hon. Member's request. I find a parallel instance on 9th May, 1956. The position here is that the Minister refused to answer a Question on the grounds of public interest and, in the circumstances, as I say, I am not in a position to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is alleging— no doubt as a result of what has taken place here—is that the Government are refusing at this time to give an undertaking not to do something which would be a breach of international law, namely, violation of the territory of a friendly Power. The question is not a hypothetical one, because we know that in recent days such an incident has happened on the initiative of a country with which we are in close alliance. Therefore, the matter is not a hypothetical one.
The Summit Conference is about to take place, and the consequences of such a breach of international law might be of the gravest imaginable importance to the people of this country. With great respect, is not the refusal of the Government to undertake not to commit such a breach of international law a matter of the most urgent public importance within the meaning of the Standing Order?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. Member wish to address an observation to me?

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Air said that on the ground of

security it was contrary to the public interest to discuss in this House this matter of photographic reconnaisance over Soviet territory, but the fact is that it is being discussed now everywhere else. The Press is full of speculation about it, including speculation about the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the policy in regard to aerial espionage over Soviet territory. It is being discussed in the Soviet Union and in the United States and it has a considerable bearing upon the relations between Governments. I should like to ask you, therefore, now that we in this House and everybody else are discussing the matter, how we are to compel Her Majesty's Government to make a statement in answer to the questions which are being raised by citizens—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite a different point. I thought that the hon. Member wanted to say something about my Ruling.
As to the observations of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I am obliged to him for making them, but they relate only to matters that I have already thought about. I adhere to my Ruling. I am sorry, but I must ask the House to accept it.
With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), whether Her Majesty's Government can be compelled to do something, I do not know, but what he can do is to discuss it presumably tomorrow afternoon, should he have the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Harold Davies: With all respect to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, there was no Summit Conference in 1956. I should like to know how that Ruling to which you referred squares with the Summit Conference and how your Ruling has been arrived at.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to argue about it. I do not think that it helps. The ground on which I have decided, although in my view sufficient and apt, is by no means the only one. The hon. Gentleman is in the same position with regard to tomorrow as are other hon. Members.

BILLS PRESENTED

MERCHANT SHIPPING (MINICOY LIGHTHOUSE)

Bill to enable the lighthouse on Minicoy Island and sums held in the General Lighthouse Fund in connection therewith to be transferred to the Government of India, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. Marples; supported by Mr. Alport and Mr. John Hay; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

COMMONWEALTH TEACHERS

Bill to make further provision for matters arising out of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference, presented by Mr. Alport; supported by Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Iain Macleod, Sir David Eccles, and Sir Edward Boyle; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

GHANA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION)

Bill to make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to Ghana and persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with Ghana, in view of Ghana's becoming a Republic while remaining a member of the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Alport; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Anthony Barber; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Orders of the Day — BETTING AND GAMING BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.42 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
If my calculations are correct, hon. Members have at all stages of this Bill so far spent a total of 88 hours in discussing the Measure. Tempting though it may be, I am sure that you share my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not attempt to set up the century this afternoon. I would be the first to agree that with the possible exception of the first two sittings in Standing Committee those 88 hours have been well spent, and that the deliberations at all stages on this Measure have led to its improvement.
I should like to pay my tribute to the many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the improvement of the Bill. It would be invidious of me to name them at this stage, but it is a fact that in the Bill as amended contributions have been made directly or indirectly by many of those who sat in the Standing Committee or took part on the Report stage. Therefore, although the Bill was initiated by Her Majesty's Government, it has been improved by the House of Commons as a whole.
One of the spokesmen for Her Majesty's Opposition yesterday said that the Opposition had had a free vote at all times, and I accept that. But, on the other hand, a study of our deliberations in Committee and of the Division records in Committee will make it clear that, although I had the strength of the Administration behind me, my hon. Friends had discretion at all stages, and on many occasions some of my hon. Friends supported the Opposition line and I benefited on many occasions from support from hon. Members opposite.
The object of the Bill—this is going back to the Second Reading—is not to encourage an increase in gambling, but is to revise laws which have fallen into disrepute, which are not understood by the public and which consume a great amount of police manpower in attempting


to enforce them. If I may, I should like to quote again from paragraph 186 of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming:
We therefore consider that the object of gambling legislation should be to interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling but to impose such restrictions as are desirable and practicable to discourage or prevent excess.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill on 16th November, carried that a little further when he said:
We hope that the Bill—with the improvements that will be made to it during its passage through Parliament—will provide reasonable freedom for people who wish to bet or to play games for money to do so, while, at the same time, retaining sufficient safeguards to act as deterrents against their being led into excess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 822]
I repeat both those statements because my concern and that of my right hon. Friend has at all times been to ensure this balance between freedom and the liberalisation of the law, on the one hand, and the prevention of excess and abuse, on the other. That is a balance which is applicable to all forms of social reform, but particularly so in relation to the Measure which we are discussing today.
Therefore, in considering the Amendments which have been moved at various stages one has to have regard to the two sides of this balance which were first expressed in the Royal Commission's recommendations. Amendments that have been made have been of both types. Amendments to the Second Schedule are of the liberalising type. The new Clause relating to young people is inserted to prevent excess or abuse.
As you will have noted, Mr. Speaker, the Bill is unchanged in its general form. It has, however, grown from 23 to 29 Clauses. I believe, and I hope that I shall find an echo of this in the speeches which follow—that the Bill has been improved during our consideration of it. Part I of the Bill, to which most of our attention has been devoted, is concerned with betting. That is founded upon the repeal of the Act of 1853, and the repeal thereby legalises off-course cash betting. That is done in Clause 1. It is this decision to legalise off-course cash betting, to give it parity with credit

betting, which gives rise to problems which are dealt with in later Clauses in Part I.
Clause 1, at the same time, maintains the prohibition in the 1853 Act regarding resorting to a place. But there are two exceptions to that. The first one, which was in the Bill when introduced, is the provision for the licensed betting office, to which I will refer in a moment, but there is an additional one which finds expression in the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 1. This brings us into the field of the factory runner.
On Second Reading, there was much criticism that the factory runner was in no way covered by the Bill. This proviso now makes some contribution towards remedying what many hon. Members thought was a deficiency. Factory runners, in so far as they are peripatetic and take their bets on the move, were legal under the Bill as introduced. The legalisation of cash betting did that. But, as the Bill originally stood, it was illegal for them to take their bets when stationary. The proviso which was inserted in Committee now makes it legal for a runner, or an agent as he has now become, to take a bet in a factory in any form, on the move or stationary. In fact, it goes further than that, because it enables bets to be taken at any place of work or in any place where people reside together.
It is possible, under this proviso, for a bet to be taken not only in a place of work, but in a hospital or hotel or, perhaps, in this building, so long as the people concerned reside or work together. Therefore, this provision will give some effect to the desire to accord legality and recognition to the factory runner.
What is not in the Bill, of course, is any reference to what was often described as the "milkman". Nothing in the Bill or in the Street Betting Act, 1906, prohibits a milkman or other roundsman acting as an agent of a bookmaker and receiving bets from his customers as a sideline to his ordinary business, provided, of course, that he has written authority from his principal under Clause 3.
The result of Clause 1 as amended is that there are now five channels available for a person who wishes to make


a bet. He can, as he always could, make his bet by telephone. Under the Bill, he can, if he wishes, make his bet by post. He can make his bet via the roundsman, the person who comes to his own doorstep. He can make his bet via the runner in his place of work or the place where he resides. Lastly, of course, he can resort to the betting office. I reiterate now what my right hon. Friend and I have said previously. There will be very few people who wish to bet who will need to resort to a betting office if they do not wish to do so. The other channels are available to them. It is not true, therefore, to suggest that the Government are driving all potential punters to the betting office.
To those five channels some right hon. and hon. Members wished to add a sixth channel, street betting. On Report, my right hon. Friend dealt, I thought, very convincingly with this issue and I do not propose to add anything at this stage, except to say that I believe that the channels which are available are adequate to meet the needs of punters in this country.
Clause 2 is largely unchanged. It deals with permits for bookmakers acting on their own account. Coupled with Clause 2 goes the First Schedule which sets up the licensing procedure. There has been no change made in Clause 2, but there have been some changes in the machinery for the licensing procedure under the First Schedule, for many of which we must be grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the many constructive contributions that he made as a result of his experience in this particular matter.
Clause 3 is entirely new. It deals with the registration of agents, formerly known as runners. It is a logical extension of the control through the principal bookmaker to the runner or agent he employs and was discussed at great length in Committee. This provision of the Bill as it now stands requires any agent employed by way of business by a principal bookmaker to have a permit authorised in writing. The bookmaker himself will be required to keep a register of authorised agents.
There was a suggestion that we should go even further and extend the licensing system not only to bookmakers, but to the

agents. The Government have rejected that suggestion on the ground of impracticability, that to impose and operate a licensing system for all the thousands of agents throughout the country would be an impossible burden for the licensing justices and a very difficult requirement to enforce.
The provision in the Clause as it stands is, in some places, regarded as unenforceable. The Times, in a recent leader, made this point, which was made also in Committee. The Government accepted and themselves made the point that there is a limit to the enforceability of the Clause in the sense that an agent who operates illegally in a place of work is unlikely to be found out. But the Committee believed, and I believe, that the Clause will, in course of time, become self-enforcing in the sense that the punter will become accustomed to frequent the registered or accredited agent rather than go to the freelance agent. I believe, therefore, that, although there may be weaknesses in the Clause, it will serve a useful purpose in the extension of control here.
I should make plain that this Clause applies only to the agent employed by the bookmaker, full-time or part-time, by way of business. It does not apply to the agent who operates as a friendly gesture for a friend or to the agent who operates as the punter's agent and who may receive a commission from the punter as opposed to the bookmaker.
Clause 4 sets up licensed offices. There is little change here. Having legalised cash betting under Clause 1, we have then to provide a place for cash betting to take place. The division between the two sides in Committee was on whether that place should be in the street or in an office. In more recent days, I think, the division has been not about one or the other but about whether both should be available. The House rejected the alternative of the street. Therefore, the place for cash betting transactions is the office.
There are still those in the House and outside who doubt very much whether these betting offices will really work. I have little doubt about it, although I know that the right hon. Member for South Shields has criticised me for trying to justify betting offices on the ground that I think they will work. They work in the Republic of Ireland. They have been working for a little more


than two years perfectly satisfactorily in Northern Ireland. They have been working, albeit illegally, in Scotland and in many places in the North of England. Although I know that this is a matter of doubt, I have no reason to believe that they will not work in the rest of England, particularly when they become legal under the Bill.
There is one important change made in the Second Schedule, in respect of offices, namely, in the provisions relating to access. It is a small change but, again, as The Times pointed out, a very significant one. No longer will the access to the betting office have to be direct from the street; it can be via a passage, corridor or some other place, provided that the access is not through another place of business. This is an important change designed principally to help rural areas, but I think it will be of use also in places where principal bookmakers will find it difficult, in view of competition, to find betting offices.
Moreover, I think that it may meet the anxieties of those like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) who fear that the betting office might become too obtrusive if it always fronted on the street. This is a considerable change, although I appreciate that it is somewhat resented by those who feel that it means a loosening of control.
The Second Schedule dealing with the conduct of offices, coupled with Clause 5, has been very much shortened. In general, the Second Schedule was criticised initially for being unenforceable in some respects, and the conditions were thought to be too austere in other respects. The attitude we have tried to adopt towards these provisions is that the betting office should be a place of business. It should, therefore, have adequate facilities for the conduct of the business. We should not, on the other hand, go to the other extreme advocated by one or two of my hon. Friends, to the extent that people would be attracted to the place who would not otherwise go there for the purpose of betting. For that reason, we have consistently opposed the introduction of radio and television.
Equally, of course, it was important to make the Schedule enforceable. Such things as the prohibition on the paying

out of winnings and on loitering, desirable though they might be, have been dropped on that account. I should make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend retains ultimate control by virtue of the hours of opening. If continuous betting of an excessive nature takes place in betting offices, it will be perfectly possible, under the Bill as it stands, for my right hon. Friend to introduce a closed period at any time during the day. Thus, control is retained despite the generally welcomed shortening and simplification of the Second Schedule.
Clause 7 deals with young persons. That is an entirely new Clause, due initially to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who first produced an Amendment to this effect. It makes it an offence to have a betting transaction with a young person, an offence to employ a young person in a betting transaction or in a licensed betting office, and it also makes it an offence to employ a young person—all under the age of 18—as an agent. The offence carries with it the ultimate sanction of Clause 8, which enables a court to order the forfeiture of a bookmaker's permit for the more serious offences of which this now becomes one.
Clause 10 is also a new Clause, albeit a simple one, following a recommendation of the Royal Commission that an annual return of the number of bookmakers' permits issued or renewed, and the number of licences issued in respect of offices in any one year, shall be laid before Parliament. It does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) would have wished, to give statistics regarding bookmakers' profits and accounts, because the Government took the view that it should not require bookmakers alone among the professions to publish accounts which would be necessary if that provision were put in the Bill.
The only other changes in Part I are minor ones. Clause 12 is entirely new. It puts the off-course greyhound totalisators in the same position as those employed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board. Clauses 13 and 14 are due to the initiative of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) as a slight addition to his Pool Betting Act regarding football pools.
Part II of the Bill is very little changed. It is still based on the objective of the Royal Commission that we should prevent persons from being induced to play for high stakes for the profit motive. It is based on the three principles recommended by the Royal Commission—it is perhaps appropriate today that I should pay tribute to Mr. Gilbert Beyfus, who himself put this particular proposal to the Royal Commission—that the chances of all the players in the games should be equal, the promoters should take no cuts in the stakes and that no charge for admission should be made except in the case of clubs. This financial approach to gaming is, of course, entirely new. No change has been made in it during the various stages of the Bill. The only changes which have been made in the very substantial and important Clause 16 are in regard to young persons, clubs and casinos.
The Committee and the House felt that it was unduly prohibitive to prevent all young persons taking part in gaming and, therefore, yesterday the House accepted some modifications in that respect. As regards clubs and casinos, the Committee and the House generally felt that there might have been a weakness in subsection (7) of the Clause and that the promoter or operator of the bogus club might find a loophole. I think that the Government felt that the profits available to such a promoter would be very little and that there would not be sufficient incentive for him to take advantage of this subsection. Nevertheless, Amendments have been incorporated in the Clause to try to prevent any loophole that might otherwise have existed.
On the point of casinos, although I have stated quite categorically that the Government were opposed to the establishment of casinos, that no private promoter would find it worth while to establish a casino under the Bill and that it would be unlikely that local authorities would do so, we accepted an Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East to make quite certain that local authorities should not take advantage of the Local Government Act to subsidise casinos to attract people to their localities. There are no significant changes with regard to the Clause dealing with gaming

machines except a small Amendment applying restrictions to young people.
In Part III, regarding amusements with prizes, the conditions remain the same and responsibility rests on the local authorities, but we have given the promoters of these amusement arcades some additional safeguards which, I think, are justified. The only other point which I think I need specifically to refer to is Clause 24, in connection with gaming in public houses. This is a matter which was fairly fully discussed on Report yesterday. I would add little to it. We have departed very considerably from the Royal Commission's recommendation and from the Bill as introduced. This departure was made in Committee and now enables many of the practices which are normally carried on illegally in public houses to be continued legally. The exception, of course, which was the subject of our debate yesterday, is one or more games of skill and chance.
My right hon. Friend and I have been challenged in various public houses in England to prove whether dominoes is a game of skill or of skill and chance. There is no doubt that dominoes is a game of skill and chance, the chance, of course, coming in the draw. Obviously, it is a game, which, if it could be conducted in a modest form, should be allowed in public houses and for that reason my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday that he would give further consideration to what is a very difficult problem if we are not to have a very grave and further departure from the Bill. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields was not with us during that discussion and that on a later Amendment he said that he hoped there would be no further concessions to the publicans. Of course, any further departure from the Bill in this respect would be a further concession. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has said that he would bear in mind what was said yesterday.

Mr. Ede: I was on public business elsewhere yesterday, but I arrived here when the Secretary of State was making his pronouncement on this matter. My subsequent remark was made in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman had already conceded. I greatly enjoy dominoes, but I regret to


have to confess that my failure at it indicates that it is a game of skill.

Mr. Vosper: That is why I am a little reluctant to take part in this challenge, because I do not think that it would prove anything so far as my skill is concerned.
My right hon. Friend has said that he will consider this matter further. Two other matters to which he said he would give further consideration in another place concern the question of advertising, which was discussed in Committee and on Report, and the increased penalties for street betting under Clause 6. These are the only three specific items which, at this moment, remain outstanding for further consideraton.
The Bill now goes to another place, and, as I said yesterday on an Amendment moved by an hon. Member opposite, it is subject to approval there and to discussion with the interested parties. We had in mind a provisional timetable which, as I explained on that Amendment, would have the effect of bringing Parts II and III into operation this autumn and will bring into effect the vital Clauses 2 and 4 on 1st May. I think that, on the whole, that is a reasonable timetable, but it is subject to negotiation with those people who have to operate these provisions of the Bill.
I have no doubt that there will be teething troubles and that various members of the public will say, "I told you so. This will not work". I believe— and I hope that I carry the House with me—that this is a workable Measure, the merits of which will become increasingly apparent with the passage of time. It will need time to establish the betting office system. We cannot expect it to work perfectly in the first year. There may be some hon. Members who still feel, as they did on Second Reading, that the Bill is too much of a concession to those interested in gambling and that it provides too generous facilities. To this, I would say that I think that the very important control which my right hon. Friend will retain over the hours of opening of betting offices will be a useful safeguard.
I would also point out that under paragraph 20 (1, b) of the First Schedule the licensing justices have considerable

discretion about the licensing offices in regard to the needs and demands of a locality. I therefore do not regard this Measure as a free-for-all for the gambler. I regard it as a reasonable Measure to provide facilities.
I do not know whether any hon. Member proposes to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. One or two hon. Members said that they would do so in their speeches at an earlier stage. I find that a little illogical at this stage. There can be only two reasons for their wishing to vote against the Third Reading. The first is that they are against gambling, but a Bill which tries to bring the law up to date is a Measure of social reform which, after all, will enable the police to do something to enforce the law and should commend itself to them. The other reason for voting against it, presumably, is a fondness for street betting. We have argued that at great length. The battle was well and truly fought, but it was lost.
I hope that the House will accept the Bill as amended in Committee and on Report, and I commend it to the House

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: ): The right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said that the Bill has had a lengthy progress, and perhaps I may add the adjective, tortuous progress, through the Committee stage, and I am sure that a great many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will give a sigh of relief that we are now approaching the final stage of our consideration of the Bill in this House.
Members on both sides will be aware that the Opposition have consistently declined to regard the Bill as a party Measure in any sense. The Opposition Whips have not been on at any stage. All Members on this side have had complete freedom to express their own individual views, both in their speeches and in their votes. Most of my hon. Friends have taken full advantage of that freedom. The greatest diversity of opinion has been expressed. I only say that to emphasise that, in giving my own personal views, I am speaking for myself alone. There are, nevertheless, one or two observations I should like to make which, I feel convinced, will secure general support on both sides.
First, I should like to pay my tribute to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the skill and studious industry with which he piloted the Bill through the Committee stage. He has treated us with unfailing courtesy, patience and consideration.

Mr. Ede: He is a gentleman.

Mr. Fletcher: At the outset, some of us were inclined to cavil at the absence of the Home Secretary from our proceedings in Committee, but I can assure him that he could not have had a better or more efficient deputy.
Secondly, those of us who served on the Committee who had no great expertise in this subject recognised how greatly indebted we were to the contributions made by Members on both sides with profound knowledge and long experience of betting or gaming, or both, notably the hon. Members for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), Southend, East, (Mr. McAdden) and Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), and, from these benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and, last but not least, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
Having said that, I ought to add that, as the Bill proceeded through Committee, I was rather conscious that it was being considered by experts and that there were times when we were, perhaps, inclined to overlook the fact that the Bill, because it is a Measure of social reform, is of interest and importance not only to those professionally concerned and interested in betting and gaming, but also to the very large number of citizens who take no great interest in betting and gaming but are concerned with the general social, ethical and educational standards of our country. They are equally concerned to have their views heard; for example, as to whether it is a good or bad thing that thousands of betting shops should be opened in England.
As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to deal with the various provisions of the Bill as it has emerged from the Report stage, I think that it is unnecessary for me to do more than comment on one or two of its major aspects. First. I should like to say a

word about Part II, which deals with gaming. When the Bill was introduced on Second Reading, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were inclined to think that the provisions dealing with gaming were, perhaps, more objectionable than those dealing with betting. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill has been amended in substantial detail in Parts I, II, and III.
At the outset, I had considerable hesitations and reservations about Part II. I shared the view expressed so forcibly on Second Reading by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that the provisions concerning gaming were likely to lead to the wholesale introduction of gaming clubs and casinos on a continental scale which, while they may be appropriate on the Continent, would I think he quite inappropriate and objectionable in this country. Having listened to our debates throughout, I think that we would all wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on his courage in having tackled the problem of our gaming laws and in having decided to clear away the whole of the archaic and outdated laws on this subject, laws which were unrealistic, anomalous and unenforceable and consequently led to a great deal of inconvenience and were largely disregarded. I pay my tribute to the reform of the gaming laws.
Speaking for myself, I am satisfied, which I was not originally, that the Bill goes as far as it possibly can to remove the risk that gaming clubs or casinos will be opened in this country for commercial exploitation. The Bill legalises the playing of games of cards and other games for money in which millions of people indulge and from which they take pleasure, and which, broadly speaking, within their limitations, have no harmful results. It would be unfortunate if these revisions of the law were to lead to the commercial exploitation of gaming. As a result of the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted, I share his hope that the Bill is now sufficiently strong to prevent the commercial exploitation of gaming while, at the same time, legalising the playing of games of cards for money in private houses, hotels and genuine clubs, to which no sensible objection could be taken.
I cannot, however, share the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman for the provisions of Part I dealing with betting. I mast draw the attention of the House to the fact that very considerable departures have been made from the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and many of the things that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stressed in recommending the Bill for acceptance on Second Reading have been very radically changed.
Looking back to the Second Reading debate, the House will recall that the Home Secretary was at pains to recommend the provisions in the Bill, notably for the introduction and legalising of betting shops, on the ground that the recommendations of the Royal Commission in paragraph 263, dealing with safeguards and protection, would be observed. If we look at the Bill in its present form, we find that most of those safeguards have now been jettisoned. In its present form, the original Second Schedule is almost unrecognisable as the Schedule recommended on Second Reading. If the House is to give the Bill a Third Reading, it should be aware that it is doing so to a Bill which has been drastically altered from the Bill which was approved on Second Reading.
The Joint Under-Secretary was ingenious when he said that all the Amendments took one of two forms, that some of them were of a liberalising nature and others were of a restricting character. It is difficult to see that they could have been anything but one or the other. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be trying to get the best of both worlds by claiming credit for every Amendment, either on the ground that it made the Bill a more liberal Measure or, on the contrary, because it made it more restrictionist. The truth is that the safeguards which the Home Secretary stressed so strongly no longer exist.
On 16th November, 1959, the Home Secretary said that
The main object is to prevent overcrowding and continuous betting.
I observe that there are no longer any provisions in the Bill to prevent overcrowding or continuous betting. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The offices may not be used for any other purpose than betting … ".—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November. 1959; Vol. 613. c. 812.]

It has now been conceded, largely because of the conditions that exist in the rural areas, that betting offices may be in ordinary shops. It is true that they will be in a different room, but the same building will be used both for the purpose of the village stores and as a betting office. The village housewife will be able to buy her groceries and place her bet at one and the same time. That safeguard, therefore, no longer exists.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)  indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher: The Home Secretary indicates that that is not correct. If, however, he has studied the discussions in Committee, and if he listened to what his right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary said about separate access, it will be clear to him that the same building can be used both as a general stores and as a betting office. There will be one entrance to one part and another entrance to another part.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary also said that people under the age of 18 would not be admitted to betting shops. There has been a welcome improvement in the general position under the Bill concerning young children, but people under the age of 18 may now be engaged not in the front of the betting shop, but behind it, where the clerical work is done. Then, the Home Secretary said that loitering would be forbidden. That safeguard has gone. There is to be no prohibition against loitering either inside or outside a betting shop.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: If I recollect rightly, the hon. Member himself, together with his hon. Friends, agreed that that was a quite unnecessary and unworkable provision and the Committee as a whole invited the Government to drop it. The Government accepted that invitation and dropped it. Surely that is a matter for congratulation and not criticism.

Mr. Fletcher: I am simply explaining that the Bill to which a Third Reading is being invited is substantially different from that to which a Second Reading was given. The hon. Member had the benefit of being present in Committee, but there are many Members of the House who did not attend the Committee. I am drawing these matters to the


attention of the House because it is for the House to decide whether to regard these matters as improvements. Obviously, on Second Reading, the Home Secretary thought that all those safeguards were desirable.
Then, the Home Secretary said that radio and television in betting shops may not be provided. As I understand the Second Schedule, that provision still exists, but there is grave doubt whether it is enforceable. In reply to the interjection by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, I remind him of the argument used in Committee, that a great many of these provisions were unenforceable. A great many of us took that view. The Home Secretary cannot claim credit both for introducing the Bill on the basis that it contained a large number of essential safeguards and, at the same time, claim credit for jettisoning all those safeguards on the ground that they are unenforceable. He cannot have it both ways.
There are still, unfortunately, a great many matters concerning the conduct of betting offices that remain obscure, and the Joint Under-Secretary appeared to recognise this during his observations. The chief objection which a number of my hon. Friends feel about betting offices generally is that, although they may serve a purpose in Scotland and the north of England, where they have been in existence, albeit illegally, there has never been any demand for them in London or the south of England. There is no reason to suppose that the betting habits of the people in the South will accommodate themselves to the legalising of betting shops.
Street betting in various forms, whether in the suburbs or at the docks, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), has always been the pattern of cash betting which the people of London and other parts of the south of England have preferred and enjoyed. The right hon. Gentleman is unduly optimistic in thinking that by legalising betting shops in the south of England, and by increasing the penalties for street betting, he will thereby eradicate street betting. It will create a social revolution to divert the habits of those who participate in cash betting by driving them from the streets into the betting shops.
Over and above that, while, if the Bill is passed, we all hope that it will work, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that in the minds of a great many people there is something unedifying and reprehensible in the fact that a tremendous amount of capital will be sunk in opening thousands and thousands of betting shops in England in circumstances in which there is no evidence that they are required or desired, or that they will cure the social evil which the Home Secretary has in mind. It must inevitably lead to an increase in the volume of betting.
I have the greatest regard for the Home Secretary. In the course of a long Parliamentary career he has been the author of many important legislative reforms. I can hardly think that he will be proud if he goes down in history as the creator of thousands of "Butler's Betting Shops", either with or without advertisements—"Bet while you wait", "No waiting allowed", or perhaps, now, " Waiting allowed. Every possible discomfort guaranteed."
Even now, the Home Secretary has not made up his mind whether he wants these betting shops to be drab, dreary places, or whether he will follow what a number of people think will be the logic of the Bill and succumb to the temptation to fit them up with attractions, inducements and amenities which will make still further inroads in the safeguards which the Royal Commission regarded as indispensable.
I have merely indicated my own views. I know that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends think differently and no doubt they will express their views in the debate. I do not know whether any of my hon. and right hon. Friends will challenge a Division. If they do, for the reasons I have indicated, with regard to Part I and not to Part II, I shall feel obliged to vote against the Bill.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I should like to join with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the Home Department on the skill with which he has stewarded the Bill throughout all its stages. I was unfortunate or fortunate—whichever the view might be —not to be a member of the Standing


Committee, but from reading the reports and listening to my right hon. Friend replying to the different points made on Report, I think it can be said that he has been courteous and helpful in trying to make certain that the views of the House were properly known and that at all times he was trying to see that the Bill was improved as a result of the views expressed at the different stages of the debates upon it. The fact that the hon. Member for Islington, East accused my right hon. Friend of bringing to Third Reading a Bill which had been considerably altered since Second Reading showed how great had been my right hon. Friend's readiness to alter it when he felt on consideration that alteration was really needed.
I have always felt that the basic point of the Bill, and particularly of Part I, was that it would bring about more equality between the man who had a credit account and could put his bet on by telephone and the man who had no credit account and wished to put his odd shilling on a horse in cash. There was a great deal of inequality between those two types of persons. I believe that the Bill at least creates more equality between them. We should accept the fact that both types of people are betting at present, but the man who lifts his telephone, makes a call and puts on a bet is not breaking the law in any way, whereas the other man in carrying out his negotiations with his bookmaker in whatever form, if he does not have a credit account, is breaking the law. I therefore welcome particularly Part I of the Bill.
All sorts of views have been put forward about the betting office. The hon. Member for Islington, East made the point that as the Bill stands it is possible for a betting office to form part of some building, for example, a grocer's shop. In these days that is one of those things that will inevitably happen. The only buildings which still appear in their own regal splendour are the public conveniences in our towns and cities. I cannot think of any other building that carries on just one item of business and does not form part of premises where other forms of business are carried out. To think that we can lay down that the street bookmaker must erect a building

which would be completely on its own and separate from any other form of business is to hope for too much.
In many cases no new buildings will be taken up to form a betting office. The office at present run by the bookmaker unlawfully will be ideal premises for the new betting office. I hope that I am not telling any tales out of school, but I have been in a number of these betting offices. They were certainly not in the North but further south, and the business carried on there was the sort of business now envisaged in the Bill. My right hon. Friend or his advisers must have had the opportunity of visiting similar premises.
I believe, therefore, that in many cases the present premises operated by the bookmaker only as a sort of centre to which his runners bring bets and from which they take away the winnings will be used as betting offices. In future, when the premises become a betting office in the true sense of the word, very much the same procedure will be carried out. I do not think there will be a great rush of people who up to now have put their bet on with the factory runner or with the milkman who will say, "Where is the nearest betting office, Charlie? I shall not be putting the bet on with you. I shall be going to the office myself." As many of my trade union colleagues already do, they will continue to give their contribution to the runner and the office will still continue to be a communication centre to which these runners will go.
I was interested in the point which my right hon. Friend made about the position of the runner. He said that the runner was O.K. under the present law until he became stationary. I am pleased that the matter is now clear and that he will be in a legal position whether he is stationary or mobile. I have met a large number of runners in factories. In many cases I would have said that "runner" was the wrong word to use to describe their normal activities. I am glad, therefore, that in future it will not be illegal for them to remain stationary.
The point which my right hon. Friend made to the effect that there are now five channels through which people can put their bets if they so desire should surely be sufficient answer to those who still believe that all that was necessary


to do was to license the bookmaker. It is right and proper that regard should be paid to the views of those people who take offence at seeing things in the street to which they object very strongly. We should make certain, therefore, that if betting is to continue the last place in which it should take place is in the street, and that those to whom it gives great offence should at least be protected from that. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall be able to rely on the fact that street betting as such will be at an end. The fact that alternative methods will be available will give the police far more incentive to try to make certain that this particular nuisance —and nuisance it can be—is taken off the streets.
I spoke about the gaming aspects on Report stage, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed to look again at games such as dominoes. It is extremely important that we should at least have the law in a position in which every one understands it, and not have to have this considerable argument as to whether, legally, games such as dominoes or cribbage are games of skill or chance. I am glad my right hon. Friend has made it clear that in his view they include a combination of the two. Chance comes first in drawing the cards or dominoes, but from then on a great deal of skill is needed.
I also made a reference on Report to young people. We have brought about a compromise. We have tended to moderate the Bill in the same way as we hope that people generally will moderate their activities in betting or gaming, and have made certain that the last word will still be with the parent or guardian and that the law will be there to back up his right to exercise the control he thinks necessary over young people until they reach the age of discretion.
It will now be possible for a family, if it wants to play a game with a few pennies as side stakes, to do so not only in a dwelling house but also in certain other circumstances, provided that the parent or guardian is willing and also that he is present while the game is in progress.
In general, I believe that while the Bill is not perfect—I cannot recall a Bill that was—it is, as a result of the

very long discussions, particularly with the understanding and courtesy shown by my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State, better than it was when it came to us on Second Reading. It will at least more clearly state the law and bring into greater equality the different sections of the community who want to have their bets in their own fashion.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: In opening this debate, the Under-Secretary of State reminded the House that already 88 hours have been spent on the Bill. This House ought to be ashamed to have it on record that such a colossal amount of time has been wasted on a Bill of this nature. It is frequently said that we have our priorities wrong. In 1960, on the eve of a Summit Conference, the time of this House and of its Members could have been spent in so many better ways to help to improve the lot of the people. This Bill will have just the adverse effect.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that it is not the intention of the Bill to encourage an increase in gambling. That may not be the intention, but it is precisely what the Bill will do. It will encourage an increase in gambling because it will make it easier for all sections of the community, including young folk, to indulge in it. There will be legal ways by which anybody will be able to place a bet. This can only encourage more gambling.
It is not my intention to make a long speech of protest. Far too much time has already been spent on the Bill. I have already protested twice against the Bill and, as a Nonconformist and member of the Methodist Church, I can do no less than register a third protest. This time I intend to do more, because I hope that we shall have a division, when I shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Denys Bullard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, as I represented his constituency for several years. Is it not a fact that the Labour Party in his division finances itself very largely by a football pool? If that is the case, should he not begin by declaring himself against that measure at home?

Mr. Hilton: I am the Member for Norfolk, South-West. I represent the Labour Party, but I am not the Labour Party, and I should hate to be. I am speaking against this Bill. Had the hon. Member not interjected, I would by now have finished.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member would not be here at all if it were not for the support which his party gave him and for the financial support of his worthy supporters, all of whom want to indulge in a little betting.

Mr. Hilton: That may be the hon. Member's opinion, but it is not mine. I am not the Labour Party; I am the representative of it. We start our proceedings at 2.30 p.m. each day with Prayers, and I should like more Members to familiarise themselves with the prayer with which we open. From time to time I also read another book, a copy of which I see sometimes on the Speaker's Table. I have read, and on occasion have spoken from, in other places, a quotation which says that we should not do
… any thing whereby thy brother stumbleith …
This Bill will help many weaker brethren and sisters to stumble. For that reason, I once again register my protest against it, and I shall vote against it.

4.50 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) complained about the changes that have been made in the Bill. I stand astonished at our moderation in Committee. Never did a Minister more invite criticism than my right hon. Friend—and never have I known a Minister to give such sincere and anxious consideration to the criticisms made. No point has been raised which he has not honestly considered, and if he has rejected it he has done so because he is satisfied that it is wrong in principle or, more probably that it will not work.
The main lines of the Bill remain unaltered. There has never been any question about the gaming part of it. It never received much attention during the Second Reading debate, and no large issue was raised on it in Committee. This is because people nowadays take a more liberal view of these matters. I do not

mean to imply that more gambling is indulged in now, or that there is a greater desire to gamble; in fact, I would say that less gambling takes place now than formerly. Other recreations compete with gambling and, on the whole, people are less anxious to pass their time and to raise their pulse rates by this form of indulgence.
The public now takes the view that if people wish to gamble for money, by playing cards, or what you will, it is reasonable that they should do so, and that it would be wrong to interfere with their liberty to do so. For that reason, in spite of what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) has said, even that section of the public which does not wish to gamble feels that the kind of provisions contained in this Measure are about right, in that they allow people to do what they wish to do without interfering with other interests. Many of the greatest minds have found their best relaxation in a simple game of cards, and it would be quite wrong for us to stop people from relaxing in that way or in similar ways. I am glad that the Bill provides additional facilities of this kind, because I am certain that they will not be abused.
So much for Part II. The position is quite different in regard to Part I, which deals with betting. Here large issues are raised. They are not issues of principle or conscience; they are simply practical issues. If we are to deal with the question of illegal betting we have to decide whether to do so by allowing facilities to be provided in the streets or by way of specified betting offices, as they are called. That has been the issue upon which we have spent most of our time.
I dislike betting offices. I always have, and I think that I always shall. I dislike them for various reasons. The principal one is probably based on aesthetics, as my right hon. Friend was kind enough to suggest. Secondly, I believe that street betting will be very difficult to eradicate. It may not be difficult in some parts of the country, but in those parts where it is still the main form of off-the-course cash betting it will be very difficult to bring about a change in people's habits. Holding those views, I said during the Second Reading debate that I thought that the Bill was wrong in principle in this respect.
To some extent, I have changed my opinion. First, during the course of our discussions in Committee a great deal of evidence was brought to bear by hon. Members from various parts of the country showing how widely betting offices or betting shops were already established. I then came to the conclusion, as many other hon. Members must have done, that what we felt about the difficulty of eradicating street betting was equally applicable to the eradication of betting shops in areas where they had become established. We therefore had to agree that betting shops would have to be legalised if we were to tackle the problem at all.
Secondly, certain modifications have been made in the Bill. Its fundamental lines have not been altered, but substantial alterations have been made, wholly to the good. The two main points which have moved me are: first, the clarification of the position of the factory runner; and, secondly, the modification of the rules for licensed betting offices. Those changes have been for the good, and they will make the Bill more workable.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member says that these changes have been generally to the good. Does he suggest that the changes made in Committee, against the advice of the Royal Commission and against the first inclinations of the Minister—to make continuous betting possible—are to the good? During the Second Reading debate it was impossible to envisage betting shops being opened indefinitely so that people could lounge about and bet, but it is now possible for them to do so. I would say that the Bill has been much weakened in Committee.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think that the hon. Member could have followed the earlier part of my speech. I believe that the Royal Commission was wrong. It is because I take that view that the idea of betting offices was at first objectionable to me. Therefore, I am not very impressed by having the Royal Commission quoted to me. To the extent that the Government have moved away from the views of the Royal Commission I think that they have been wise, and that these changes are improvements.
If we are to have betting offices, the first essential is that they should work. If we object to betting offices simply on grounds of conscience, and do not want them to work, that is another matter. I doubt whether betting offices are the best way of doing the job we want to do, but if we are to have betting offices let us make them as efficient as possible.
I still have doubts about the balance of Part I of the Bill. I am still not certain that the Bill will necessarily work out as well as we hope. I think that the legalisation of all betting shops and the encouragement to establish them—indeed, the necessity to establish them—in those places where they do not already exist will create a large vested interest, and if we find that the Bill is not working out as easily or as smoothly as we would wish, that vested interest will be exceedingly difficult to deal with. It will make future amendment of the law much more difficult.
I view the position with some apprehension because I am not satisfied that the establishment of betting shops will bring to an end illegal betting. As I have said, I hope that it will. We have put our money on legal betting shops. We hope that they will win, and we will do all we can to make them do so.
The aspect of the Bill about which I am doubtful is not so much whether it will not be possible to drive street betting off the pavements—I think it may be with the increased penalties and the provision of shops—but that there will be a great deal of betting in public houses. I think that it will be much more difficult to drive illegal betting out of public houses and places of that kind which are not catered for in the Bill. However, we have to hope for the best.
The Committee upstairs and the House here have made up their minds that they are against any form of legalised street betting, and are in favour or the betting shop. I am certain that if there had been no Whips on at any stage of the discussions the same position would have been reached both in Committee and in the House. From what I have heard on the Floor of the House, and from discussions with my hon. Friends, I am sure that opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the line which the Government have taken. I said on Second


Reading that I thought that the Government must take responsibility for a Measure such as this and that they were right to put on the Whips. Feeling that, and having said that, I thought that it was my duty to support the Government even on those occasions when, to the best of my ability, I argued against some of the things that the Government were doing. Apart from their power to put on the Whips, I am sure that the Government have the support of an overwhelming number of hon. Members and of the country.
If the Government can maintain that support they will go a long way towards making the Bill a success, because it will succeed only if it has public opinion behind it. For that reason I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will do their best to give it that support, and that it will get an unopposed Third Reading this afternoon.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: I definitely and honestly hold the view that no Government can suppress betting and gaming. Therefore, one is confronted with the question, what is the alternative? I have come to the conclusion that if one cannot suppress the evils of gambling the only alternative is to try to control it. To that extent I have, with one or two exceptions, supported the Government during the progress of the Bill, because I believe that this is a serious attempt to control and to eliminate the evils, the anomalies and the archaic laws that exist at present in relation to this great social problem. I therefore find myself on the side of the Government.
I may have been influenced in that support by the fact that the Bill seeks to legalise in England what is the existing pattern of betting in Scotland. Indeed, during the Committee stage of the Bill it appeared that that pattern existed not only in Scotland but in most of the North of England, and, if I understood the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) correctly, he seemed to imply that betting offices existed further south. I was therefore content and happy to find that the Government were legalising the betting shop system which we had for at least ten years.
I appreciate that the Bill will alter the pattern of betting in England. Street

betting will no longer be legal, and England will have to adopt the system of betting shops that we have in Scotland. I do not bet or gamble, but my experience during thirty years in public life in the City of Glasgow leads me to believe that over the last ten years the betting shop has been a vast improvement on the system of street book-making. As I explained in Committee, there may be peculiar reasons for that in Scotland, for instance, by virtue of the type of residential properties that we have. The betting shop is tidier. It is more easily controlled, and it is a more enlightened way of betting.
Unfortunately I was on the Continent when the question of runners was discussed in Committee. I was assured by the Scottish Starting Price Bookmakers Association in Scotland that bookmakers who occupy shop premises do not find it necessary to employ runners. I wrote to the association for confirmation, and I was categorically assured that there was no necessity for runners when one was operating the betting system from shop premises as distinct from being a street bookmaker. I do not know how the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will view this problem— whether he will confirm or try to deny the statement made to me that there is no need for runners.
There is one aspect of the Bill on which I found myself in violent conflict with the Government, and that is regarding the placing on the local licensing authority of the responsibility for the issuing of bookmakers' and agency permits, betting shop licences and things of that kind. As the Joint Under-Secretary well realises, I have appealed to him to reconsider that matter and to take it entirely out of hands of the local licensing authorities.
As far as Part II of the Bill is concerned, which deals with the question of gaming, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), think that what we have accomplished there is exceedingly good, inasmuch as we have swept away the archaic laws which have existed hitherto.
Finally, I wish to pay a tribute to the Joint Under-Secretary of State not only for the very efficient manner in which he dealt with the Scottish aspects of the


Bill, but also for the co-operation which he displayed towards Scottish Members during the Committee stage and for his very helpful manner generally. To that extent, I should like to place on record my appreciation of his work in connection with the Bill.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I wish to express the same sentiments to the Government, and, indeed, to all the Ministers who at different times have intervened in our discussions to deal with different parts of this complex Measure, as those expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I thank them for the very liberal-minded attitude which they have shown and for the trouble they have taken to get a grasp of a very difficult subject. Particularly do I wish to thank my right hon. Friend who, because he had no particular knowledge of this subject at the outset, had really to make very detailed excursions up and down the country in order to obtain the knowledge which he has since shown.
I suppose that no one could be more diametrically opposed than I to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton). He said today that we ought to be discussing the Summit and that the House ought not to devote its time to such matters as gaming and betting. He really got my hackles up. I believe that it is the duty of Parliament, and one of the greatest duties and privileges of Parliament, to try to look after the ordinary interests of the ordinary people of the country in their day-to-day activities.
I have been associated, and intend to remain associated over the next few years at least of my Parliamentary life, in doing precisely this sort of task.

Mr. Hilton: Mr. Hilton rose—

Mr. Rees-Davies: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, of course.
Therefore, I believe that one of the greatest matters to be dealt with is what is known as the rule of law. We have the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, and I was proud to be closely associated with the Street Offences Act and with the Measure relating to murder.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point which I am making is that the pattern of this Bill is directly in line with those Measures. What I am saying is that in dealing with this matter today and in getting rid of Victoriana, the House is showing a truly democratic approach, a progressive approach, to legislation.
The Sixth Schedule, at which we have not looked, deals with the repeal of the whole of the Unlawful Games Act, 1541. My answer to the criticisms levelled by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West is that in my opinion we are spending our time in the best possible way by dealing with what affects the daily lives of the people. Betting and gaming are undoubtedly two of their principal if unlawful occupations.

Mr. Hilton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I am sorry if I got his hackles up, but may I repeat what I said? I said that I consider that this House should be ashamed to spend some 88 hours, plus today, on a Bill such as this, a Bill which in my opinion is going to bring misery to still more people and to push still more people downhill, when there are so many decent things which we could do to help people on the eve of the Summit Conference.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree that that is what the hon. Gentleman said before. Alice in Wonderland said that what one says three times is true, but I am not sure that it is true of the hon. Gentleman.
Curiously enough, the one part of the Bill which we have not discussed, although it is one of great importance, is the Sixth Schedule. One matter to which I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention is that I am not at all sure that before the Bill goes through another place he may not have carefully to reconsider it in order to see that he has not left some outmoded legislation on the stocks by mistake.
I observe that although we have spent some 88 hours on the Bill, Section 1 of the Gaming Act, 1710, is still standing


although the rest of that Act is repealed. I am glad to see that Henry VIII has gone out of the window, or will do so when this Bill becomes law. No Government in the history of this country has ever had the guts—that is really the word to use—to attempt to deal with the gaming laws of the country. There are two reasons for this. One is that Governments were always terrified of the Baptists. They always felt that the Church's view would be against it. I take the view that today a very large number of God-fearing and church-going people do not take the view which was taken in the Victorian age and earlier, namely, that we ought to keep thoroughly bad and incomprehensible legislation and unenforceable laws in being because to alter them would be to make things worse.
The Bill does five things. It does them in accordance with a pattern of legislation which has emerged from this Government, and which will emerge in the future, in connection with the licensing laws, the shop laws and the Sunday observance laws. It is only when the whole of this legislation is seen in one system that one will see what it is that this Conservative Government are aiming to do. They are aiming to deal gradually year by year with the reform of the whole of what I call the Victorian social legislation.
The first of the five things which the Bill will do will, I am sure, commend itself to hon. Member opposite as it does to hon. Members on this side of the House. It will end the class distinction in regard to betting and gaming. There is a very great deal of class distinction in betting and gaming. It is a well-known fact—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is not in his usual place—that many people who bet normally do so over the telephone. The working-class man does not. He does his betting either in the street or in the betting office. Therefore, one way or another, the Bill will provide him with facilities to bet on equality with others.
We find that many of the people raided were small clubs, taxi drivers and people of that kind who very often pleaded guilty because they did not know the law, whereas those who had money were able to brief counsel and solicitor to

appear for them in cases where they could cite the archaic, stupid laws in order to secure their acquittal.
The second thing which the Bill will do, and this is perhaps the most important of all, is to provide us with a law which is enforceable, on which there will be clarity and for which there will also be respect. The Bill will make it possible for the police to enforce the law without fear or favour instead of, as at the moment, chief constables and their officers having to decide in their own discretion whether to enforce the law or not.
The third is with regard to a system. I think it essential, if one is to be able to do anything for the benefit of horse racing and betting generally, that we should get some levy and a reasonable system of betting in this country. One of the reasons—although the other two which I have already adumbrated are also reasons—why I believe we should have betting offices is that once the system becomes part of the tradition of betting in this country the bookmaker will become a respected citizen. To my mind, that is fundamental in this Bill and is what I have fought for.
Bookmakers will become good trade unionists, which is something that hop. Gentlemen opposite cannot complain about. The Bookmakers' Protection Association, not a very important body at the moment, will become very important. When a bookmaker becomes licensed he will have something of value like the publican. When he obtains a licence and knows that he has a good and a sound business, he will make sure that there is no disorderly behaviour on the betting office premises and that people do not sit around or loiter in the offices. If he does not, my right hon. Friend, by virtue of retaining the regulations in the Second Schedule, has given himself a get-out. That was a very astute move. I am not sure that it was foreseen by the House. I did not realise it myself. We are to have a method by which my right hon. Friend can operate and a method by which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) and others who are interested in the Peppiatt Committee's Report will be able to secure a levy for the benefit of racing. If hon. Members believe, as I do, that it is for the benefit of horse racing


that there should be some levy from the bookmaker as well as from the totalisator, we have to find a system with which to achieve that. We could not do it if we had street bookmakers. It may be done only through a system of licences and betting offices, and the method to be adopted will provide that.
We have had an undertaking from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there will be a closing hour at 6.30 p.m., and I think there ought to be. Opening hours do not seem to be necessary. What is open to the Government is the important question which was raised by Mr. Curling in a letter he wrote in the Daily Telegraph, that in the racing world there are two views. One is that betting offices should close during racing hours and that people should put on their bets previously. The other view is that betting offices should be open throughout the hours of racing. At the outset of the Committee stage proceedings I said to my right hon. Friend, both during the debates and otherwise—one had many opportunities for discussing this matter—that it seemed to me the fundamental issue was whether we were to have the betting offices closed during the hours of racing or open. After anxious thought I came to the conclusion that it would be better if the betting offices were open.
If it turns out that this is unsatisfactory, there exists power under the Second Schedule, by regulations which may be made, to reverse that policy without having to come back to this House for new legislation. For that reason I supported the proposal yesterday that it should be done in this way although we shall start with the premises being open in the afternoon.
The whole question of gaming under Part II of the Bill is a very difficult and complex matter to think out and put down in writing, as those of us who have tried to do so have found out. It is essential to achieve two objectives. The first is to prevent people from promoting gaming for their own profit, and that objective has been achieved by the provisions contained in this Bill. The second is to enable people to play games of chance, or chance and skill combined, in their own homes or in clubs or elsewhere provided they do not occasion harm to others or that their activities do not lead to an unduly excessive amount

of gambling. This second objective has been substantially achieved, but there are one or two matters about which I am still not altogether happy.
I expressed strong views regarding gaming and youth and about the position of a parent or guardian. But the Government are against me on this and have reached a compromise. I hope that they will see, with those people who are representative of the camps to be found up and down the country—Warner's, Butlin's and so on—that the general pleasures of today can, in one way or another, be provided within the provisions of this Bill; or by securing an Amendment to the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, which might be another way to enable normal camp activities to be carried on such as we find at the seaside. I do not believe there would be any insuperable obstacle to that. It would enable a family to play a game of housey-housey without having to send those under 18 out of the room. That is one criticism which I think can still be made, if we are trying to have gaming available to all who wish to game, provided that the gaming is not being conducted for profit.
The final matter with which I wish to deal is the question of amusements and fun fairs. A great many hon. Members are not concerned with this, but in the Isle of Thanet I am deeply concerned with the position of amusement and fun fairs. The tourist resorts all-party Committee in this House has had to give this matter careful consideration. These facilities are used by thousands of tourists, including those from overseas, and represent a gigantic industry. It is not only an industry which provides profits for those who happen to run the amusements. Machines have to be made, and up to now we have had to buy machines from America, because the whole business has been held in such contempt and because its legality depended on the decision of chief constables in different areas and whether or not they decided to prosecute. In Margate and Ramsgate there were no prosecutions, but in Scarborough and Blackpool there were. The various associations and those concerned with this industry were in the gravest difficulty. They could not invent new machines or have them made in this country to be exported to other countries because they


did not know whether police permission would be given. Consequently, we have had to buy machines from America.
Now it will be possible for machines to be made and invented in this country and exported to other countries. Many such machines are purely for amusement; there is hardly any gaming element attached to a great many of them. This will enable the people concerned to "become respectable", to work within the terms of the law and to receive advice if they need it. It will enable them to operate without having to look over their shoulders all the time to see whether the police are there, although, of course, they have always been on good terms with the police—they have to be, otherwise they could not have operated at all.
My right hon. Friend has made a number of changes in Part III of the Bill in order to meet the views which were expressed during the Committee stage proceedings. He has done his best to try to see that reasonable machines may be used in a reasonable way. I think that yesterday he may well have been right to say that these machines ought to be confined to "pubs" or halls and not for there to be such a very wide general user throughout the country as might be occasioned if we encouraged the use of small gaming machines elsewhere. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider to what extent he might widen this provision and the type of machine which could be used, particularly where it is a machine requiring skill to operate.
By and large, the many hours which we have spent together on this Bill have not only provided a remarkable education for all of us during that period, but have done a great deal towards educating a great part of the country, and many of the Churches and other people with no appreciation of what goes on in betting offices, in the street betting world, and things of that kind, to realise, as we are bound to do, although people may not talk about it, that two-thirds of the people of the entire country have a bet one way or another most days of their lives, and that it is about time that Parliament tried to put this gigantic business, with all its complexities, in order.
While we may not have achieved perfection, we have gone a long way towards improving the Bill, and this is largely

due to the tolerant, kindly, lucid and able way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and also my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, and the other Joint Under-Secretaries for that matter, have worked together on this Bill as a team to try to make it the best possible Bill.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I voted against this Bill on Second Reading because I believed it was a bad Bill. It is now a worse Bill. Therefore, if there is a Division on Third Reading, I shall vote against it again.
I join in the tributes that have been paid to the Minister; but, after all, they only mean that he is a gentleman, even when he is discharging the duties of his office. I have never dissented from that view, but I do not share in the eulogies that have been paid by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), because I do not think that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary allowed certain hon. Members on the other side of the Committee to wreck the Second Schedule of the Bill was anything that a responsible Minister should have allowed. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman there allowed himself to yield to pressure that should have been resisted, and, after what the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has told us about his own views on the Bill and the way in which he consistently conformed with the views of the right hon. Gentleman, when expressed in the various stages of the Bill, it is quite clear that he would have been in no danger at all had he insisted on the Second Schedule going through in the light of the arguments used in its favour by the Home Secretary on Second Reading.

Mr. Vosper: I formed my opinion that the Second Schedule should be amended very early on; in fact, before my hon. Friends put down any Amendments.

Mr. Ede: I am not at all sure that that is not worse. I hope that those hon. Gentleman will realise that all the tributes which he paid to their method of dealing with the Bill were really quite unmeaning, because whether they had spoken or not, if they had not done it, he would have put down the Amendments. I wonder what he would have


done if they had not pressed him, in spite of his own view.
I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about me and the reform of the First Schedule, because the First Schedule as drafted showed no conception of the way in which the provisions would have to be administered. I regret that the administration of the Bill will be in the hands of the Home Office, because, when I was there, my wife said to me, after she had had a conversation with the Permanent Undersecretary, "Do you know that the Permanent Under-Secretary has never been to the Derby? You ought to invite him." I did, and I saw that he obtained some knowledge of the way in which ordinary people approach this subject. I regret that the notes which he must have made after that experience appear to have been lost and were therefore not available to the right hon. Gentleman when he drafted the First Schedule. I hope that the First Schedule will now provide a workable means of getting the betting shops into operation. I think the right hon. Gentleman is far too optimistic about the length of time the process will take, but I sincerely wish success to those who have to undertake it.
I gather that the right hon. Gentleman said towards the close of his speech this afternoon that there were now only two outstanding matters which remain for consideration. Is that a warning to a certain bench in the Upper House that they are not to express their views about some of the proposals in this Bill?

Mr. Vosper: I said that there were three specific outstanding matters to which we are giving consideration-advertising, dominoes and associated games and the increased penalties for street betting—but that does not deter our noble Friends from adding their further considerations.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that the Bench of Bishops will be relieved to hear that.
I want to deal now with something which I regard very seriously, and that is the way in which the Amendments made in regard to factory runners have wrecked the Home Secretary's views with regard to keeping youth away from actual betting operations. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

Northampton (Mr. Paget) disagrees both with the Home Secretary and myself on this matter, but as he usually disagrees with most of us on nearly everything, that is not surprising. Whereas legalised street bookmaking would have been under observation, legalised betting with and by the factory runner in the factory will not be under observation. When the Small Lotteries and Gaming Bill was going through the House and there was some question about the age that should be mentioned, I suggested the age of 16 in the belief that before very long 16 will be the school-leaving age. When a young person gets away from school and into a factory, office, or other place where he has to mix with other people, he desires, at first particularly, to assume all the rights, as he regards them, of the workers with whom he is associating.
On that Bill, I suggested, and the suggestion was finally incorporated in the Act, that the age of 16 was fixed because that would mean that the young person going out into the world would not have, as almost his first experience, the discovery that there were ways of dodging the law by acting in association with other people. If the right hon. Gentleman is to try to enforce the age of 18 elsewhere, he will find it very difficult to enforce it when betting takes place legally within the factory. I know that the right hon. Gentleman himself confessed, at the time that he accepted the factory runner, that that would be one of the difficulties.
I do not want to see the common informer among adults in a factory, holding strong views against gambling and informing the police that illegalities are being committed, some scheme then being arranged between the informer and the police whereby such a breach can be detected and followed by a prosecution. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that would be a very undesirable effect of the Amendment which he has made. I hope that some way will be found to deal with it other than what now appear to be the only obvious ways of handling it.
Now we come to the milkman who has suddenly been provided with a new source of income. The manager of a large depot of United Dairies has said that after considering the Bill he thinks that it might be possible in future to


get an applicant for employment as a milk roundsman to be willing to pay a fee for the privilege in view of the opportunities which are to be afforded to followers of that useful and essential occupation by these provisions.

Mr. Simon Wingfleld Digby: Surely that is a good thing. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in rural areas deliveries of milk and other things are becoming increasingly difficult.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that it is a good thing. These ways of trying to evade what the right hon. Gentleman has done are not good things. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has said, we want a Bill which is enforceable, and I do not regard these ways of dodging the real purpose of the Bill as suitable for legislation when we are trying to make the law absolutely enforceable.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet gave us what he regarded as the five great benefits of the Bill. I am not greatly concerned with the gaming laws. My experience of them is not very large and has been mainly confined to dealing with the gentlemen who have gone to Epsom Downs trying to make a living and who have invited their fellow-citizens to "spot the lady", "prick the garter", or deal with the "spinning jenny".
I understand that while on Epsom Downs one will still be able to bet and to make a book on the horse races, but it will still be illegal to invite one's fellow-citizens to "spot the lady"—a game of skill if ever there was one. I have been assured by high-ranking police officers that there is always a "lady" being shuffled, but that one can be quite sure that if anyone spots her he is a confederate. The first two or three occasions on which she turns up so obviously in the right place are merely devices to lead other people to think that, not being confederates, they also will have equally good luck.

Mr. R. T. Paget: As a game of pure skill, would not the lady be made respectable and legalised?

Mr. Ede: I am still open to conviction on that point. I have not heard, in all his claims to fame, that the right hon. Gentleman has legalised that game.
I shall confine myself to the first three point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. We are told that there will now be five legal ways of betting. There are some people who have liked to bet in a sixth way. Those people mostly belong to a particular section of the community. How can the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet claim that we have got rid of class legislation in this matter all the time that that sixth form is to be illegal and the 'penalties attached to it are to be much higher?
I have always lived in Epsom, but I have never seen a street bookmaker, except in the dock. When I am told that the street bookmaker is a nuisance and that the sight of him offends certain people, I wonder how many of them have ever seen a street bookmaker, particularly when he is operating. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to see them and that the police officers of London arranged for him to see them operating. Had he gone, without police guidance, into the same streets into which he was taken, I wonder whether he would have seen one of them. Looking as respectable as he does, I wonder whether, if they had seen him, they would have allowed him to see them operating. This is class legislation whether the hon. Member for the Me of Thanet likes it or not.
I am now in the position where I can if I want use all the five methods which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Why should I be able to operate in one of those five ways while the person who wants to operate the sixth is denied the right to exercise his legitimate preference as an English citizen? I do not think that the hon. Member can win on his first point.
Now we have the statement by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet that we have a law of which we can get enforcement. We have laws now of which we could get enforcement if the police wished to operate them. If there is still a strong public feeling in certain places for street bookmaking to operate, can the hon. Member guarantee that the police, who do not now enforce it, will then enforce the law? Was not evidence brought before the Royal Commission to the effect that this was the one thing which got the police "in wrong" with the general public?

Mr. Rees-Davies: There is a direct analogy between the right hon. Gentleman's argument and the argument which he and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made when they said the same thing about prostitutes in the streets. We said that we could get them off the streets and that they would not be seen, and we have succeeded in doing that. We have exactly the same situation in this case. We want to get bookmakers off the streets and there will be abundant opportunity elsewhere, and we will not have any trouble.

Mr. Ede: I know what my hon. and learned Friend said about that legislation, but I was very careful not to say anything of the kind. However, I share the views of my hon. and learned Friend in saying that we have not got rid of that evil.

Mr. Rees-Davies: We got them off the streets.

Mr. Ede: If the evil continues elsewhere, I do not think that that is a very great legislative achievement. We might have got them off the streets, but these were people easily visible in the street to ordinary citizens and were to that extent frequently the cause of great annoyance to people of both sexes. I repeat the challenge: who has seen a street bookmaker and who has seen him operating? If we had legalised the street bookmaker, had imposed on him the duty of registration and assigned to him a place where, within a reasonable limit, he could operate, he would have been under observation by the police. People could have seen whether in fact he took bets from young people. I do not want to go further with this because it is not in the Bill. That is one of the reasons why I shall vote against the Bill.
For the third point, the hon. Member said that we can have a uniform system of betting. As a consistent Nonconformist, I object to all uniform ways of doing anything. I always bet on the Tote, but if a friend of mine wishes to bet in a betting shop, let him do it. If he wishes to bet in the street, let him do that and so arrange the matter that you can observe what he is doing and know what kind of business the street bookmaker is carrying on. It is claimed that we are going to make the bookmaker a respectable person. I know the

street bookmaker is respected by his clientele, for the reasons I gave in Committee and on Report. If he is not respected by them, his business just vanishes.
The hon. Member said he would be in the same position as the publican. That is what some of us always feared, that we would create a new great vested interest capable of bringing most tremendous pressure to bear on all forms of public authorities and public persons. The House is going to cause the investment, I believe, of large sums of money in a new form of carrying on a business, which in the long run will be able to exert pressures that will not be for the benefit of the community. I accept everything said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton in Committee when he moved an Amendment dealing with that matter.
The Home Secretary said the other evening on the Report stage that the street was not the place in which to bet. That is a dogmatic statement. No evidence has ever been produced to support that view, nor instances quoted to make me believe that it is a doctrine that ought to be held. If a person wishes to do this and can do it under proper control—enforceable and more likely to be enforced if the thing is done openly than if it is done in the furtive and secretive way it is done at the moment—I believe he should have the opportunity to do it. I deplore the increase in penalties found in the Bill I deplore also the way in which the Jockey Club, of all people, have been led up the garden on this matter, as the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) explained to us in Committee.
I asked on Second Reading that some provision should be made in regard to the contribution of the trade to the support of horse racing. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet says that that will be easier, and I am inclined to agree with him, but I regret that the decision to inquire into it was taken so late that it cannot be included in this Bill. Next Session we shall have to return to this subject and deal with the matter, if the Government are able between now and then to devise a feasible scheme to put before us.
I like seeing horses race. I do not regard it as a profitable spectacle, I never have, but I like to see it. With a


large number of my fellow citizens, I like to have my choice and make a declaration, the wisdom of foolishness of which is speedily brought home to me. In a world in which the opportunity of making choices and exercising initiative is becoming more and more difficult for hundreds of thousands of people in this country, that part of this pastime is not to be despised.
During the great depression, when hundreds of thousands of people were unemployed with no chance of exercising any real sense of responsibility, they found in pools an opportunity to assert their individuality and the power of making a choice. The old argument about racing horses being useful for improving the breed of horses has gone. Officers in the Army no longer require chargers and the Artillery does not want horses. It is very difficult in these days to justify the upkeep of large numbers of expensive animals which very soon will be only active counters in a gambling game.
It may very well be that in some time of difficult economic circumstances for this country people may wonder whether the employment of so much labour and so much produce on these animals is really worth while. Those of us who soldiered in the First World War know that it takes far more "bulk" to provide food for horses than for a considerable number of men.
Anything that tends to accentuate class feeling in this particular form of amusement is, I think, a bad thing from the point of view of the amusement. Because this Bill does a great deal to bring this matter still further into the class arena and denies reasonable opportunities to a good many people to participate as they would like in it, I shall vote against the Third Reading.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Like most of those who took part in the proceedings in Standing Committee D, I feel that in a way we are losing an old friend this afternoon, an old friend who has been a little irritating at times. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) tell us that we have been wasting our time, because we spent a great deal of time in Committee

upstairs reminiscent of what happened over some of the Bills brought in during the 1945 Parliament. Debates on this Bill have been very different from debates on them, in the way in which party co-operation has been possible. There has been a great deal of free thinking and free voting on both sides.

Mr. Paget: Free voting?

Mr. Digby: Well, there were some abstentions on our side of the Committee. There was an analogy, with those debates in that it is very difficult to foresee the consequences of what we have done. I have not got the feeling that we have been presiding over the production of what might be called a classic winner, to use racing parlance, but I believe that we have produced an animal which is rather better than when we started. There I differ from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I feel that the changes in the Bill have been to the good, although it may be that amending legislation will be necessary later. After all, we have been undertaking legislation at its most difficult in trying to deal with the social habits of the country at a time when the law, by common consent, has been ignored.
That leads me to the main point which I wish to make. We should not imagine that there will not continue to be many evasions of the law, even as we leave it. The main motive of the Bill is to canalise off-course cash betting into the betting shops. The question of street betting and whether it should and could be abolished has been discussed in considerable detail. In a sense, we are trying to impose the social habits of the North upon the South, and I, for one, should not like to venture a prophecy how that will work. Much will depend on the betting shops—how many are set up and whether the totalisator itself goes into the betting shop business; and I, for one, very much hope that it will. I am delighted that the Second Schedule, with its rather grandmotherly regulations about the conduct of a betting shop, has been altered. There, again, I regret to find myself in disagreement with the right hon. Member for South Shields.
In the Bill we are trying to change the social habits of the country. It is


true that the gap between the social habits and the law has been narrowed by the Bill, but it is important to remember that it has not been eliminated. It may be all right in the North, because we are merely legalising something which has been conducted illegally up to now— the betting shop. It appears that people in the North wish to place their bets in betting shops. The position in the South is rather different. We are trying to get the people in the South to adopt a method of placing their bets which has not found favour up to the present. The man who has been in the habit of placing a casual bet in the South has probably gone to the newsvendor on the corner or into the nearest public house and asked, "Where can I put on my money?" He will not be able to do that legally; it will remain illegal.
We are bound to ask ourselves, will he nevertheless continue to do it? Will the newsvendors on street corners stop acting as bookmakers' runners? Will the public houses refuse all bets in the future? Those are two methods which are prevalent in the South, and I for one doubt very much whether we can abolish them very easily.
We are told that the gentleman who at present places his bet with the news-vendor or the public house should walk about the town looking for a betting shop. It may not be very easy to find one. The Government are still thinking about an Amendment which would prohibit the owner of a betting shop from publishing its whereabouts. We must bear in mind that the smaller country towns are fairly scattered and that it will not be very easy to find a betting shop, even if the punter can be bothered to look for it.
There are other betting habits in the South of England. The milkman acting as a runner has been mentioned. That method of betting will be legal, provided that the milkman remembers not to stand in the street while he is taking a bet. It is all to the good that he will have to be registered. This system will no doubt continue more or less unimpaired. The old-age pensioner who collects bets from house to house will also be permitted to continue, if he does not stand in the street to collect bets and no doubt he will telephone the bets on to the local bookmaker.

The problem of the use of a village shop for the placing of bets has not been solved so completely. It is true that if a local punter wishes to go to the village shop he is allowed to do so provided that he goes to a room at the back and provided that he uses a separate door from that leading to the shop. I suppose that the attendant in the shop will be able to go to the room from the back of the shop, but the punter will have to go through a separate door from that leading into the shop. I very much doubt whether that kind of provision will be respected in the country areas. One is left with a picture of unfortunate village constables, who have to look after a number of villages, seeking breathlessly on their bicycles to try to track down all these obvious breaches of the law.
It is very hard to foretell how far these attempts to change the obvious betting habits in the South will work. Everything will depend upon the success of the betting shops, on how many are provided and how wisely they are conducted. We must, however, face one point: although the Government have shown great courage in this matter and my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State has been most understanding about it, there are difficulties to which we have not found a complete answer, and we are once again passing legislation which almost certainly will lead to evasions on a bigger or smaller scale.

6.7 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I join in the tribute which the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) paid to the Committee for the hard work which it has done on the Bill. I believe that the country does not realise how much patient work is done in detailed examination of Measures which leave the House and are sent upstairs for consideration by hon. Members in Committee.
I am glad to join in that tribute, although I must confess that I was amazed at the description by the hon. Member of what he called the non-party voting which has taken place in the House and in Committee on the Bill. Previously, I have praised Conservative loyalty, but I have never seen it


expressed to the extent to which the hon. Member expressed it. In every vote which has taken place on this Measure, the Government Whips have been on, yet the hon. Member regards himself as having been free because occasionally someone has abstained.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: The hon. Member was not present at the Committee meetings upstairs. If he had been, he would know that on a number of occasions criticism of the Government was expressed quite vocally and that there were abstentions and votes against the Government. As a result, the Bill has been considerably amended. The reason there has been much more unanimity on Report is that so many of these difficulties were met in Committee.

Mr. Paget: If my hon. Friend had been in Committee he would further have observed that, one after another, hon. Members opposite spoke in favour of Amendments and then voted against them in obedience to the Whips.

Dr. King: The intervention of the hon. Member for Dorset, West has not corrected a single word I said. He has only refuted a charge which I did not make—that Conservative tyranny could be so great as to prevent hon. Members from expressing opinions.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: Not only did I move my own Amendments and vote in support of them against the Government, but, in the regrettable absence of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) through illness, I moved his Amendment for him, too.

Dr. King: I intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, and as that is quite an unusual step to take in the House I feel that I ought to explain my reasons. They have been put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), to some extent, although he proposes to vote for the Bill.
I want to turn to what I regard as the chief defect of the Bill. As I see it, the Bill proposes to encourage betting by legalising betting offices or betting shops. Betting needs no such encouragement. I am quite certain that in the betting

shops we shall create a new, powerful industry. Much capital will be poured into it, and that capital must go out to get business. Betting will, therefore, be encouraged as a result of the legalising of betting shops. At the same time, the Bill is discouraging one form of betting by increasing penalties for betting on the streets.
There was certainly a case—I will deal with it in a moment—for tidying up the law. I am certain that my hon. Friends who are Nonconformist, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) will agree that even if they oppose betting itself, the present state of the laws on betting called for drastic reform. But to encourage and discourage betting in one Measure seems to me quite illogical.
It is obvious that the betting laws needed tidying up. I am sure Chat we are all delighted to see going off the Statute Book, for example, the Unlawful Games Act, 1541, which prohibited all kinds of quite respectable sports and which a docile Parliament slipped through in the reign of Henry VIII in between the Acts it passed legalising his various marriages, divorces and executions.
There are all kinds of indefensible anomalies in the law. The anomalies in the betting law which made thousands and millions of people in England deliberately be law breakers day after day were bad. However, at a time when we are destroying such anomalies, it is fantastic that we should create a new one. It is right that we should end the distinction between the credit bettor and the cash bettor, one of whom was perfectly respectable and one of whom was thoroughly illegal. Yet we are now to discriminate between betting shop gambling and street gambling. When this Bill is passed it will be legal to gamble in a field—provided that some of the horses of which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke so eloquently are performing—but not in a street.
This interference with social habits is not on any grounds which can be justified morally, legally or rationally. I listened to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) with some attention as he developed the five points he claimed we were achieving under the


Bill. If we discriminate in this way between street betting and betting office betting, we distinguish between people of the north of England and people of the South. We are saying that a North country habit is one which we are prepared to tolerate, but a habit which exists largely in the South is one which is reprehensible. We are isolating as bad a betting habit which is confined to poorer people. In spite of what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said, this still makes a class distinction. It is a class distinction between the betting methods of people, one of which we approve and one of which we are to punish.
Why are we doing this? I listened with interest to the reason given by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). I did not take down his exact words but I hope that that never paraphrase unfairly. He said that, if betting on the streets causes some people offence, it is good that it should be taken off the streets. He said that the Bill would take betting off the streets and so avoid giving offence to people who are offended by betting. For a long time the world has accused us of being a nation of hypocrites. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said that the Bill gets rid of Victoriana. I suggest that merely to take something which one regards as an offence off the street and tuck it away in a betting shop is a piece of Victoriana in excelsis.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member has not misinterpreted what I said, but he has tended to suggest that I thought that it was an offence to bet. All that I said was that the fact that there could be bookmakers on the streets prepared to do business could give offence to certain people who do not believe in gambling. Street bookmakers would be more obtrusive by the very nature of things if they were licensed. At present, they are unobtrusive mainly because they are unlicensed, and so they are illegal.

Dr. King: The hon. Member has expressed the same point, but a little more elaborately than before—that something which he thinks is right and which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields eulogised, but which some other people in the community think is wrong, can be dealt with fairly

by removing it out of the sight of people who are annoyed by it. This is what the Victorians did.
Laws will work only if they command the respect of the British people and if they commend themselves to Britain's sense of justice. The need expressed by the Royal Commissions on betting, and the whole purpose of the laborious work of the Committee and the Home Secretary on the Bill, has been to remedy the position in which many people found that the present state of the law was unjust and, because it was unjust, they were breaking it. If people break one law which they know to be unjust this can lead to breaking laws which are just.
I am shocked to find a parrallel drawn in the debate to what was done about prostitution. I am not certain that we have solved the problem of prostitution by the Street Offences Act. The argument that, because we have driven prostitution off the streets, therefore in the Bill we are seeking to drive betting off the streets is tenable only if the House holds the belief that gambling, like prostitution, is an evil. No hon. Gentleman who has advanced that opinion in this debate holds such a belief. If betting is bad and a sin, it is a sin both in betting offices and in the streets. If betting is good, it is good in betting offices and in the streets.
One of the five points of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet was that we should have respect for the law. I find it impossible to have respect for a law which makes that distinction, and I am sure that the people whose social habits are being interfered with will have the same lack of respect for a law which they believe to be unjust to them, and will break the new law as they have done the old ones. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said that the Bill will make the bookmaker respectable. It will make only certain kinds of bookmaker respectable. It adds ignominy and increased penalties to one kind of bookmaker merely because of the physical surroundings in which he conducts his business.
In the early stages of the Bill I met the bookmakers of the south of Hampshire. I passed their observations on to my hon. Friends who served on the Committee. I doubt whether I had ever had


any previous dealings with bookmakers. The men I met were respectable members of their profession. They shared the desire of the House to clean up the book-making profession. They would welcome anything which would get rid of the evils, crookery and cheating associated with gambling, but they resent— and, I think, resent in the name of justice—an unjust distinction between two kinds of bookmaker which depends almost on geography.
I shall not talk on Third Reading about the morality of betting. I am not a gambler. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields amazes me more every day. When he spoke this afternoon of "spotting the lady" and "pricking the garter", I wondered whether he was speaking on the right Bill. Other people's pleasures and vices are their own affair, unless they impinge on the well-being of the community, but I have some sympathy with the portrait that another Butler gave in "Hudibras", of the man who attacked the vices that he had no mind to as a cover up for the vices which he himself was inclined to.
Certainly, one's own lack of interest in gambling could not justify anyone leaving the law in the state in which it was until the Bill came before the House. I welcome those parts of the Bill which place the kind of restriction which I would always want to support, anything which removes the temptation to gamble from our young folk. In so far as this Bill imposes certain age checks on gambling, I welcome it, though I support what my right hon. Friend said about its not going far enough in that direction.
The Third Reading of a betting Bill is an occasion to point out that the sort of encouragement of betting and speculation that the Government, by their other legislation, have given, means that we are trying at present to get by on a philosophy that one can get something for nothing, and that it is right to do so. Britain will certainly not get by in the critical years ahead on such a philosophy. Obviously, we cannot promote a Measure to destroy people's natural interest in gambling, in card playing, in horse racing and the rest

when the whole of present society is built on a gamble.
I hope that one day, from the other side of this House, we shall introduce Measures that will remove or curb the element of gambling in land, in property, in finance, and all the rest that makes up the present capitalist society. That is much more important than interfering with the pleasure that people get in gambling. I remain convinced that the Bill contains an injustice as between the street bookmaker and the street gambler and the office bookmaker and the office gambler, and for that reason I shall vote against it.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: When I was told that I was to serve on the Standing Committee that was to consider this Bill I was quite certain that I had not been chosen because I was an expert on gambling, and those who noticed my silence in Committee must assume that in my youth I was trained to keep quiet in the presence of those who knew better. But no one could serve on that Committee without learning a great deal about what lay behind the Bill, and about gambling. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) was not quite fair when he said that the House had discussed the Measure for 88 hours, because 80 hours were taken up with our Committee proceedings.
Quite frankly, I consider betting to be a complete mug's game, but that does not mean that we should legislate against those people who want to bet. The argument for or against street book-making is much more simple than has been made out, and I am sorry that it has been brought up as a class issue. I do not see any class issue between having a bet in a betting shop and having a bet in the street.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill I have had two thoughts in my mind. The first was the need to tidy up the law. I think that a lot of the present lawlessness is the result of a lot of quite ridiculous legislation that people have learnt to disrespect. Disrespect for the law gets worse and worse, and I believe that part of the trouble with our youth today is caused by its slipping slowly down the slippery slope. I believe that the Bill will tidy up the law and that


by it we will be doing the best we can to stop betting among the young.
I have a fundamental objection to the street bookmaker. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is an expert on the magisterial side, while my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Dayies) is an expert from the barrister's point of view, and both have given a complete picture of the situation. My hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) and for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) have also given a very clear description of all types of betting—in fact, I began to wonder whether it was anything to do with the mouth of the Thames that made one an expert on betting.
Whilst these street bookmakers are illegal, they are out of sight. The moment we make them legal, it is quite obvious that they will be seen. If they are there to be seen, children will see bets placed with them, and I can think of nothing worse than children asking, "Mummy, what are those people doing?" and learning about it too soon. For that reason, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has put this business behind doors, has put beating on a cash basis and has done away with the so-called class issue.
My second point also concerns youth, and is my reason for yesterday supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) which had to do with what we call "one-armed bandits" in youth clubs. These gaming machines provide another method by which gambling can easily slip into these clubs. I know of a number of golf clubs and other clubs that are now making themselves pay by the amount of money made out of these "one-armed bandits", and I am delighted that they are to be forbidden in youth clubs.
The Bill also legalises the games of whist and bridge that people enjoy in a sensible way. I know that some of my constituents in Folkestone would be quite alarmed—appalled—to think that they were breaking the law by playing bridge in licensed premises, so I am delighted that the Bill allows that to be done. I would ask my right hon. Friend, who has been so helpful to a new Member, just to clear up one point for me.
On Tuesday we discussed an Amendment dealing with the prohibition of municipal casinos. I should like an assurance that that prohibition does not apply to the playing of cards in municipally-owned rooms. As my right hon. Friend knows, I now refer to the Leas Cliff Hall at Folkestone, a large municipal hall. The fact that it is a licensed premises has stopped the playing of a harmless game of bridge. I shall be delighted to vote for the Bill, in the belief that it will not encourage betting but will encourage better law keeping.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I confess that I was a little surprised by some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). His idea that children would be corrupted by seeing people pass a bet to a street bookmaker seems to underrate the scope of original sin. Children need more than that to corrupt them—I know that I certainly did. As for children seeing betting being done, again searching my own experience and looking back as perhaps one should not, the only examples from which I think I have ever profited are bad ones. How often do we follow the virtuous? But when we see someone really making a mug of himself we decide that that is something not to do.
I am, therefore, very doubtful whether hiding the fact that someone has a bob on a horse from the children until they are grown up and discover it as something grown up and exciting and new, instead of having discovered at an early age poor father's misfortunes when the horse always ran slowly, is perhaps not the most efficient way of discouraging gambling.
Of course, if one took this seriously, one would stop children going to point-to-points or races. At a point-to-point, the place is full of children—it is a lovely children's party. I always take my children, and I think that most other people do. It is a real child's event. The children see the bookmakers there— but we will leave that out because I think that this is really a very trivial aspect of the Bill.
During our proceedings on the Bill we have spent very many hours considering the contradictory and complex


muddle of our gambling laws, and with them we have done something that I should previously have thought was quite incredible, if not impossible—we have made them worse. Let us look at this for a moment. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that his great commendation of the Bill was that we have made the bookmakers respectable members of society. That may, indeed, be so. I think that we have probably made them powerful members of society. But a society which respects men who are prepared to devote their lives to the utterly sterile and unproductive occupation of taking money for nothing from people who gamble is not a respectable society.
We have created a situation in which people like the pool proprietors and greyhound racing promoters are going to bring in and sterilise great blocks of capital. From the point of view of the productivity of this community, much is going to be wasted by what we are doing today. Great blocks of new sterile capital are going to be devoted to property, bricks and mortar, and manpower in pursuance of this gambling obsession. Of course, this Bill will mean more gambling, and advertising and door-to-door canvassing will be legalised. Is this an improvement in our society?
We are getting a law which is no more enforceable than it was before. We dealt yesterday with the nonsense of trying to prevent children at school from having a card game. We are bringing the law into contempt. But for the street bookmaker the practice is to continue. All we are doing is to raise the level of corruption, just as by sending the girls off the streets we have created the sort of situation which has led to the Pen Club case, by linking crime and strong-arm methods to the promotion of prostitution. We shall have more lawlessness, more crime and more money invested in this sort of activity.
This is a bad Measure which will make our community more unproductive. I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I have long wished to see our gambling legislation dealt with and replaced by decent gambling laws, and I bitterly regret that this great opportunity has been missed.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) referred more than once to the sterile unproductive occupation of taking money for nothing. I wondered what was particularly productive about his own occupation which enables people to wax fat on the follies of human nature.
I support the Bill. I congratulate the Government on their good sense in introducing this Measure. To try to reform the chaotic laws of betting and gaming is something which has never before been undertaken by any Government. Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that the Bill has improved the law. There is no doubt that in its present form it is better than it was when it first appeared on 30th October. That is largely due to the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House co-operated throughout very lengthy discussions which were most useful and, indeed, instructive.
All of us must have learned something. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was kind enough to refer to me as one who had some knowledge of this subject. I freely admit that I know something of it, but I have learned from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) the precise difference between baccarat and chemin de fer—a difference of which I had not been fully aware. I have also learned something from which I have since profited, namely, that it is possible to back unnamed favourites each way with Tote Investors Limited. I would commend that thought to other hon. Members.
Our thanks are due to my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the patient way in which he has listened to these arguments, although he has perhaps not heeded some of them as much as I would have wished. I disagree with those hon. Members who have criticised the Government for their departure from some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I do not look on the recommendations of the Royal Commission as being Holy Writ, as I have said before. Those who have said that in altering the Second Schedule we have done wrong are quite mistaken. I believe that we have removed a lot of quite stupid and unworkable restrictions.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was grateful to my right hon. Friend for thanking him for the contribution that he made on the First Schedule. I admit that he did a great deal to improve it. Perhaps he did not mean to take it this way, but it looked as if he thought the First Schedule was improved because of his own contribution and that the Second Schedule was made very much worse when my right hon. Friend followed his own good sense and listened to the advice of some of the rest of us.
The situation of factory runners is one that I have never liked, although for different reasons from those which have been expressed. The factory is the wrong place for the runner. It would have been much better had my right hon. Friend allowed the practice to continue as it has done up to now, outside the factory gates. For those reasons I have supported those who have felt that we should continue with street betting.
Another suggestion which the Government would not accept was the system of licensing runners. I cannot see how it is more difficult to license thousands of runners than it is to license thousands of dogs or motor cars merely by going to the proper office and paying a fee. Although I have said that I would have liked street betting to continue, I think that the Government are quite right to adopt the system of betting shops. I do not object to that at all. I hope that the betting shops will succeed, and I think they will succeed, given a certain amount of time. Meantime, I believe the Bill will do much to remove the existing absurdities of the present law.
As to the gaming part of the Bill, it will do something to help the licensed trade, although here, again, the Government have not gone quite so far as I would have liked. Perhaps there will be an opportunity on a future occasion to go into the whole subject of the licensing laws a great deal more fully.
My final point, with which, I think, the right hon. Member for South Shields will not entirely agree, is that the Bill will provide a framework for the proposals of the Peppiatt Committee. It will provide a means whereby betting can make a contribution towards horse racing. I do not look on horse racing merely as a sport; I look on it as a great

industry. In my view, this contribution, if we get it, will be of great advantage to all engaged in horse racing, whether they be the people who breed horses, the people who own them, the people who train them or the people who look after them in the stables. I believe, also, that it will provide better amenities for the public, on whom racing so largely depends. That the Bill will provide that framework is not the least of my reasons for giving it my wholehearted support.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: It would be churlish if I did not repeat in public my apologies to the right hon. Gentleman for not being present during this debate, but, as he knows, I have two interests. Getting a Bill through is one and Blue Streak is the other. Sometimes, I wonder whether I might get them mixed up and persuade my colleagues on the Tote Board to declare a dividend on Blue Streak. However, at this moment I am sufficiently in charge of my mind to have the two interests completely separated.
I wish, first, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kindness during the Committee stage. He faced a very difficult task, for the Government, after a great deal of hesitation, based their Bill upon the Royal Commission's Report, which in many respects was hopelessly out of date. The House will remember that there were four years available to the Government during which time they were making up their mind. In 1956, they declared that they intended to introduce legislation, and I think that it would have been of advantage to use that time to bring the recommendations of the Royal Commission up to date. We might well, I think, have had another Royal Commission, though perhaps one which did not sit so long, to go into the matter afresh.
I have another confession to make. When that first debate took place, I advanced the view that if the House were asked to bring the betting laws up to date, certainly so far as they affected racing, this would probably be a subject more properly dealt with in a Private Member's Bill. However, when the House was forced to face the fact that the disregard of the betting laws worked in such a way as to bring the reputation of the police into discredit, the matter


became a task for the Executive, a very urgent task indeed. I should be less than honest if I did not admit, also, that on that occasion I said that I never expected to see the day when any Government, of either party, would have the courage to bring in a Measure. The Government have had the courage to do so, and I congratulate them for it.
I come now to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). No one in the House is held in greater affection. This is, of course, because he is so very English. Enshrined in his character and in what he says is a streak of that essentially English characteristic which one never quite knows to be nonsense or hypocrisy. But, as I am always charitable, in his case I think that it is pure nonsense. In my view, the House ought to give the Bill a Third Reading. It has taken ten years to get as far as this, and though I share with my hon. and learned Friend doubts about the Bill in certain respects, I hope very much—and I know he does— that those doubts are unfounded.
What has happened as regards betting and what concerns the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens is that a practice which has been allowed to grow up, particularly in Scotland but to some extent in the north of England also, namely, the use of the betting shop, is to be in some measure accepted. The House will note that the betting shops which seem to exist already are not the kind of betting shops which the Government say they envisage in their Bill. They are the betting shops in which continuous betting is allowed, with the "blower" operating, the chalker-upper at work, the radio and the television going, even with light refreshments and all the atmosphere of the betting club. Of course, when the Bill becomes law, these practices ought to cease, and the Government hope that a much more puritanical, more restricted and more orderly betting shop will take root in the South of England.
I do not think that social habits change quite as quickly as the Government think that they will. In my view, the Government would have been wiser to take powers so that, if they were wrong, they could make adjustments by regulation. If they are wrong, the forebodings of my

hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, the forebodings of myself and of other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, I think, may be realised in fact, and we may have a situation worse than what we have now.
I come now to something else said by my hon. and learned Friend about the nature of betting. I share with him the view that having a shilling each way, two shillings each way, or, occasionally, more each way or to win, is not a sin. I do not find it in my heart to regard myself as an inferior person on that account. Often, in Committee, hon. Members treated having a bet as if it were something wrong and, putting their hands on their hearts, they said, "Of course, I have never done it. It should not be extended. It is very bad that it should exist, and we must protect the young from it."
I was greatly impressed, as I am sure the House was, by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton). He told of the severity of his upbringing, which was similar to my own, although, of course, I did not come from a Methodist family because my family were mostly soldiers in the Regular Army and that sort of discipline one did not readily acquire in those circumstances. But I accept what my hon. Friend says and I know exactly what he means. My hon. Friend says that he never gambled. I think he tends to forget that everyone likes to gamble.
I remember a very telling retort made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in this connection. Incidentally, I should like to acknowledge the wisdom which my right hon. Friend has shown and the wise guidance which he has given to the House and to the Committee during the passage of the Bill. One of my hon. Friends expressed the moral view and said that he never gambled. Later in his speech he said that something was casting bread upon the waters, to which my right hon. Friend replied, "There is no bigger gamble than that."
To return to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, I am sure he will forgive me if I say that I went to him afterwards and asked him if he had ever played marbles. Yes, he had played marbles. I have played marbles. When we played marbles and


won, we took the other fellow's marbles. That is a gamble, too. It may be that, for the purposes of this Bill, it is a combination of gamble and skill, but gamble it all is. How many Members who have at all stages of the Bill poured scorn on those who dare to have a bet, go along on Private Member's Day and put their names down in the Ballot?

Mr. Hilton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is true that I, like all other boys, played marbles. I have played nearly every game there is. I have played them for love of the game, and I have had as much fun out of playing games for love as my hon. Friend has through gambling. I must make it quite clear that it is possible to play any game without having to gamble.

Mr. Wigg: I quite accept what my hon. Friend says, but I was brought up in another school. The only game I play is pontoon, and one cannot play that for love. That is the difficulty. I told the House yesterday of difficulties I ran into early in my military career because I acquired a certain skill at pontoon. If any hon. Member cares to invite me to play with him now, I trust that I have not lost that skill.
Be that as it may, I want to turn now to a very serious point made, quite rightly, by my hon. and learned Friend about the amount of capital tied up in this business. My hon. and learned Friend says that it is non-productive. I thought that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) was not very kind to compare book-making with the legal profession because, after all, some lawyers do something useful sometimes, and my hon. and learned Friend was saying that bookmakers never do.
We must accept human frailty for what it is, and betting is part of people's lives. It lightens the burden of life. During the war, the continuation of racing was essential to the national well-being. I know that the horses had to eat. I know that those who surreptitiously went to race meetings in motor cars ought not to have used the petrol, but the effect on the men in the factories, working long hours under very diffcult conditions, was to make life a little brighter for them by the hope that they had brought off a three-cross double or backed the winner

of the 3.30. That is a fact. It is part of the English scene.
I want to see racing put on an absolutely honest basis with the dangers of corruption, whether of the police, the owner, the trainer or the jockey kept to the absolute minimum. I agree with the hon. Member that this is also a business. That is one of the troubles. A few shillings each way for me or my hon. Friends is just fun, but when it reaches its final destination it is not a few shillings but hundreds and thousands of pounds, and in some cases, on big races, it is millions. Betting is now conducted on a world-wide basis. Now, if any hon. Member has an old selling plater and he wants to put something on it to win at 20 to 1, the place to do it is not London but Johannesburg. This is done quite often. This business is international in its scope. It has also an effect on international prestige. When the French win the Derby they are to some extent spitting on Nelson. I personally resent that, quite apart from the fact that I have a prejudice against French horses, but we have to recognise these things.
This is big business conducted on a very large scale indeed from which we all of us receive some advantage. A great deal of it is unproductive. Like so many other things, it becomes utterly wrong if abused. If a considerable section of the population spent all their time in amusement arcades or in betting shops, betting on a continuous basis, that would produce a very great social evil.
The Bill is not at all that I would like it to be, but I think that it takes a step forward. I should like the hon. Gentleman, when he replies to the debate, to give the House this final assurance. The House has accepted his advice, often against the better judgment of hon. Members opposite. If, after a year or two, it is found that the forebodings of some of us about the way it works are justified, and assuming that the party opposite is still in office, would the representatives of the Government give an undertaking to keep the situation under review and then come back to the House of Commons, if necessary, not to say that they have been wrong but to bring the Bill up to date? It would be absolutely fatal if this Measure were found not to work and another ten years or so elapsed before anything was done


about it. Provided that this is regarded as an experiment, we can all wish it well, and if the experiment does not work we must have another go.

6.55 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I am glad to have this opportunity of doing so, for the welcome he has given to the Bill. He ended by asking for an assurance that the progress of the Bill, once it becomes law, will be watched. Our laws are not the laws of the Medes and Persians that change not. We are busily engaged with legislation and amending legislation over a large part of the year. I can assure him that the progress of this legislation will be carefully watched.
Some hon. Members have complained that there was no legislation about it. Today we have had a complaint that the House has spent so much time on this Bill when it should have occupied all its time with international problems. By any standards this is a major Bill. A Bill which concerns the habits of many millions of citizens and which affects the livelihoods of many thousands of bookmakers and deals with the manner in which hundreds of millions of pounds will change hands each year is an important Bill. It has been treated as an important Bill in the House.
We have had a two-day debate on Second Reading, twenty-five sittings in Committee, the report of which occupies 1,281 columns of HANSARD, and virtually two days debate on Report. Now we are about to conclude the Third Reading. The fundamental difficulty that we have had to deal with is that in the eyes of a large proportion of our fellow citizens the law on betting and gaming no longer commanded respect. It was illogical and discriminatory, and it was being overtly flouted. We have set out to devise a system which will satisfy the reasonable needs of those who wish to gamble without causing offence to those who do not, while providing adequate supervision by the community.
The introduction of a new system is bound to affect different people in different ways. The choice of a system of licensed betting offices has been made for three main reasons. First, because

betting offices are relatively easy to control; secondly, because it seems the natural way in which to do betting business and the way in which it would normally and generally have been done had it not been for the legislation restricting cash betting off the course; and lastly because betting in the streets, if it were made legal, could so easily become a nuisance to the public and a danger to the young.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he had never seen a street bookmaker. They are illegal now. What would happen if they ceased to be illegal? Does anyone suggest then that he would never see a street bookmaker? He goes on to say that there is a question of class. What difference is there between going into a shop to register a bet and registering a bet in the street? That argument will not wash. It is natural that those who have been accustomed to earn their livelihood as street bookmakers feel aggrieved that their method of taking bets should not only continue to be illegal but should be more heavily penalised in future, whilst others whose methods were no less and no more illegal are to be allowed to continue to work in much the same way as they are doing at present, provided they receive a betting office licence.
It was right and proper that hon. Members should voice that feeling and should probe the strength of the Government's determination not to legalise street betting and, indeed, to suppress it. But the Government are quite determined about this. A group of Amendments moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields on Report which would have legalised the acceptance of written instructions and cash in streets and public places did not obtain much support in the House. That, I think, shows that the Government's attitude commends itself to the House as a whole on this point.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman must be fair about this. Do not let it go out from this House that that is exactly how it went. The only reason that the Amendment was not carried in Committee was that the Government applied the Whips. I think that every speech except one favoured the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Macpherson: I think that the Division was five to one or thereabouts on the Amendment. In any case, what is the alternative? There was the right hon. Gentleman's own suggestion. He talked about the creation of a vested interest, but his suggestion was to license street bookmakers. Of course, street bookmakers would also have to be regulated as to numbers so there again that would create a vested interest, but a different vested interest and one much less easy to control.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) wanted to vote against the Bill because it encourages gambling and he is against gambling. He then went on to favour street betting. This did not seem to be entirely logical. He said that if betting is bad then it is bad in the street and in the shop. If betting is not bad then it is not bad either in the street or in the shop. What about liquor licensing? That is something which the House and the country have long accepted. It is a question of where and how one does things. In fact, that is exactly what we are doing in the gaming section of the Bill. We are not making games as such unlawful. We are making games unlawful if they are played in certain circumstances and in certain places.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) complained about imposing the habits of the North on the South. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) answered him in advance by indicating fairly clearly that there are certain parts in the south where there are betting shops. Of course, that is so. Also, it is not the case that there are no street bookmakers in Scotland. There is a very considerable number of street bookmakers still operating in Scotland. There was a tendency at an earlier stage of the Bill to try to find a different solution to the cash betting problem on each side of the border. I think that the desire to do so was based on the misapprehension that there was no betting on streets or in factories in Scotland and that there were no betting offices in England. That was quickly dissipated, and it was by no means true.
I regard it as one of the best features of the Bill that, broadly speaking, the same law will apply to both betting and

gaming throughout Great Britain. An Englishman who likes having a bet and goes to Scotland will not be subjected to petty annoyance or even prosecution through finding a different system working there. The same will apply to a Scotsman who goes to England.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) spoke in the debate. I would like to throw the ball back to him by saying that the Government have greatly appreciated his steadying influence on the Opposition side throughout the Bill. There is one point still outstanding, and we are sorry that we have not been able to meet him on it. It is the point concerning the licensing authority in Scotland. As the hon. Member knows, this is an extremely difficult problem, but we take the view that the duties of the licensing authorities in Scotland are not purely judicial. They are a mixture of judicial and social requirements.
Despite the fact that we recognise the force of the arguments which the hon. Member put forward, we think that it would be a condemnation of our democracy if we could not trust the licensing courts to carry out their functions properly, even though there will be a right of appeal to the sheriff. I cannot believe that the hon. Member has as low a view of our democratic system and of public life in our cities and burghs as that. We must stand by the argument that we have put forward unless there is some further development, as there may be through the Commission which is at present sitting.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), to whom we are greatly indebted for his help throughout the Bill, asked whether we have repealed everything. The answer is that all the provisions at present on the Statute Book dealing with gaming are to be repealed except, first, the provisions dealing with the enforcement of gaming contracts in the courts, secondly, Sections 10 to 14 of the Gaming Act, 1845, which deal with the licensing of billiard saloons and, thirdly, Section 17 of the Gaming Act, 1845, which deals with cheating. I cannot say whether that covers "spot the lady" or not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) raised the question of municipal


casinos. It is not our intention that the Amendment which we accepted on Thursday concerning casinos should affect the occasional use of municipal premises for gaming such as my hon. Friend had in mind. We shall certainly look at the matter again, as we said on Report, before the next stage of the Bill.
It would be too much to expect that a Bill of this kind would receive either universal or wholehearted support, but let us at least do justice to the spirit in which it has been handled by the House and not least by the Government. The Government have been criticised for maintaining their point of view and for changing it to meet the wishes of the House. That is, perhaps, the liberal approach to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet referred and for which he gave us credit, but the Government have shown themselves ready to respond to suggestions for the improvement of the Bill so long as its fundamental principles are not assailed. A kind of statutory registration of bookmakers' agents by their principals has been introduced, the prohibition on loitering has been removed, betting offices are no longer to be of repellant austerity and information for punters is to be available in them, which could not be stopped, and the position of the factory runner clarified.
On the other hand, the safeguards for young persons have been improved, particularly for betting and gaming machines. In the case of gaming, we accepted the new Clause of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). The Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), if anything, would have extended the facilities for young people. I thought that the hon. Member for Islington, East was looking for reasons for opposing the Bill rather than having any firm and decided views upon it. He more or less implied that he did not feel strongly enough on the matter to call a Division but that if anyone else did so he would join in.

Despite his helpfulness on many occasions, I thought that that was a slightly ambivalent attitude to the Bill.

Inasmuch as the Bill will enable betting and gaming to be controlled to a far greater extent than at present, I suggest to the House that it ought to command the support of all hon. Members, including even that of the hon. Member for Norfolk. South-West (Mr. Hilton). There has been a lot of loose thinking on these matters. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West is entitled to his own personal opinions, but he does not seem to mind benefiting from the result of a lottery, although he is strongly opposed to lotteries. I understand that the constituency party funds which helped the hon. Member to victory at the last election benefit to a very considerable extent from lotteries and that much of them is raised by lotteries. That is an illustration of the loose thinking that we have had on part of the Bill.

Mr. Hilton: I think that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was present when I made it clear that I had nothing to do with that lottery. I am the Member for Norfolk, South-West. I am a member of the Labour Party, but I am not the Labour Party.

Mr. Macpherson: The only point that I was making was that if the hon. Member wants to be totally logical he should refuse the support of funds raised in that way.
As the Bill stands, it lays down principles for gaming which have been generally accepted. It frees gaming for pleasure from restriction while banning commercial exploitation. It establishes a system of bookmakers' permits and licences for betting shops. I think that, with the co-operation of hon. Members, we have a workable and much more enforceable Measure, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill he now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 42.

Division No. 81.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks)
Bossom, Clive


Allason, James
Berkeley, Humphry
Bourne-Arton, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxeth)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)


Barber, Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John
Brewis, John


Barter, John
Bingham, R. M.
Brooman-White, R.


Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.
Bullard, Denys




Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Holt, Arthur
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, R. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pitt, Miss Edith


Channon, H. P. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pott, Percivall


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Powell, J. Enoch


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Prentise, R. E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Collard, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, James


Corfield, F. V.
Jackson, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Costain A.P.
James, David
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Coulson J. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees, Hugh


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jennings, J. C.
Rees-Davies, W.R.


Critchley, Julian
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, David


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Dance James
Joseph, Sir Keith
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


de Ferranti, Basil




Delargy, Hugh
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Seymour, Leslie


Drayson, G. B.




Driberg, Tom
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


du Cann, Edward
Key, Rt. Hon. C.W.
Shaw, M.


Duncan, Sir James
Kitson, Timothy
Shepherd, William


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Leburn, Gilmour
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


 
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eden John
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfrd &amp; Chiswick)


Edwards Walter (Stepney)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smithers, Peter


Elliot, R. W.
Loveys, Walter H.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Emery, Peter
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, Rupert


Farr, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Stephen
Stevens, Geoffrey


Finlay, Graeme
MacArthur, Ian
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fisher, Nigel
McInnes, James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McLaren, Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel



McMaster, Stanley R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Freeth, Denzil
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Talbot, John E.


George, J.C.(Pollok)
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Glyn Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Teeling, William


Goodhart, Philip
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gordon Walker Rt. Hon. P. C.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gresham, Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S.L.C.
Turner, Colin


Grimston, Sir Robert
Millan, Bruce
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mills, Stratton
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mort. D.L.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Watts, James


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Nabarro, Gerald
Webster, David


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Neave, Airey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Harmar
Whitelaw, William


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Noble Michael
Wigg, George


Hiley, Joseph
Nugent, Sir Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.
Wise, A. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hobson, John
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)
Worsley, Marcus


Hocking, Philip N.
Page, Graham
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.



Hollingworth, John
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Peel.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hilton, A. V.
Redhead, E. C.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holman, Percy
Reynolds, G. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Small, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cronin, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Symonds. J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Marsh, Richard
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, Harold
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Fletcher, Eric
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Winterbottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, William
Randall, Harry
Mr. Paget and Dr. King.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — DOCK WORKERS (PENSIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.19 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am glad to introduce the Bill to the House. It is designed to facilitate the introduction of a pension scheme for dock workers. This is a scheme which has been discussed in the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry between the port employers and the trade unions and has been agreed between them. They have asked the Government to introduce the Bill in order to make it possible to proceed with the pension scheme.
I warmly welcome this scheme. It is a most important development in the process of improving the security and the status of the dock worker, a process which has been going on since before the last war. Over 70,000 dock workers will have an option of joining the scheme, not only the "men with a hook", but lightermen, cranedrivers and clerks. It is a point of interest that altogether there will be about 1,100 employers belonging to the scheme. These figures of about 70,000 dock workers and over 1,100 employers being involved in it gives some idea of the size of the scheme and also of the complexity of reaching agreement about it.
It is a far cry from this pension scheme to the strike of 1889, which won the "Docker's Tanner". The slogan then was, "Work or maintenance". In 1912, the first register of dock workers was set up in Liverpool, where I saw the Dock Labour Scheme in action in January. By the beginning of the Second World War there were registers on a voluntary basis in all the big ports. The year 1940 saw the statutory registration of dock workers and the introduction of a guaranteed wage.
These fundamental principles, as the House knows, are at the heart of the present Dock Labour Scheme, introduced in 1947, which finally marked the end of the casual system of hiring labour in the docks. The introduction of a pension scheme is a remarkable demonstration of the extent to which the work of the dock

worker has become regular and assured. The scheme itself is evidence of the employers' interest in their men and of the men's interest and standing in their own occupation.
The scheme and, much more, all that it implies, will surely make a most valuable contribution to the general improvement of relationships in the docks. I hope that this improvement will, in turn, reduce the number of small and sometimes unofficial disputes which still trouble the smooth working of this great industry. The pension scheme itself is a private one, and the decision to introduce it was taken by the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, representing port employers and trade unions together. The Council has drawn up the scheme and it is the Council that will appoint trustees under it to run it and be responsible for it.
The scheme will be financed by contributions from employers and from workers. In general, these contributions will be collected by the National Dock Labour Board and I propose to empower the Board to do this by making a suitable amendment to the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1947.
I said "in general" because the contributions of weekly workers will be collected by the employers in whose service they are and I propose to make provision for this, also, in the Dock Labour Scheme. As I have said, the pension scheme is drawn up by the National Joint Council for the industry, but I am sure that the House will be interested to have some details even though we are not discussing or dealing with legislation about the scheme itself this evening, but only with an enabling Bill.
The workers' contributions will be 2s. 6d. a week and the employers will contribute a sum equal to the total workers' contribution plus whatever addition may be necessary to ensure that the scheme is viable. For a long time after the introduction of the scheme it is expected that the employers will pay about twice as much as the workers. Pensions at 65 or over will vary according to the length of service. At one end of the scale the pension will be 10s. a week, plus £100 lump sum, and at the other end 40s. These will be in addition to any benefits under State schemes.


including the proposed graduated retirement pensions. There will be also benefits under the scheme in the event of retirement on the ground of ill-health and also payments in the event of death.
The Board will collect the workers' contributions by deduction from their wages, and this will be the only way in which contributions can be paid. Those who have drawn up the scheme considered this to be the only feasible arrangement in a pension scheme of this kind which, as I have said, will extend to a whole industry and will cover a very large number of workers working for a large number of employers. As far as I know, the scheme is unique in that it will be covering a large industry and, at the same time, a large number of employers. There are other very large schemes, but in the hands of one employer, as is the case with the great nationalised industries.

Mr. J. T. Price: For the sake of a correct record, may I be allowed to point out that there are some federated schemes, particularly in the flour-milling industry, which cover a great number of employers who have come to an arrangement to make this sort of thing possible?

Mr. Heath: I am obliged to the hon. Member. His knowledge amplifies our own researches.
The fact that it is a compulsory deduction would, however, infringe the Truck Acts and for this reason I am introducing this short Bill at the request of the National Joint Council. The purpose of Clause 1 (1) is to put the pension scheme outside the scope of the Truck Acts. Similar legislative provision has been found necessary in the case of other industries—the railway industry, coal mining and the gas industry, and also in the case of the Port of London Authority.
It is the intention that all dock employers should belong to the pension scheme. All those already employed as dock workers will be given the option of joining, but those who elect to join will not be allowed to reverse their decision later. All workers in the industry at present are given the option to come in or to stay out, but once they elect to come in that remains as a permanent arrangement. All workers who join the

industry in future will be required to become members of the scheme. I propose to incorporate these obligations in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme.
It is possible that the imposition of these obligations on dock workers may offend against the Shops Clubs Act, 1902. It is an offence under that Act for an employer to make it a condition of employment that a worker should join a shop club or thrift fund unless it is registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and certified under the 1902 Act by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
I think that it will be agreed that it is inappropriate that this scheme should be subject to this procedure, which was drafted with the abuses of a different age in mind, and I have, therefore, in the second subsection in Clause 1, provided for the pension scheme to be brought outside the scope of the 1902 Act. Again, there are precedents in the cases of the railways, coal mining and gas industries and in the case of the Port of London Authority for doing this.
Clause 2 restricts the operation of the Bill to Great Britain. This follows the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946, the operation of which is similarly restricted. I have already mentioned that, arising from the introduction of the pension scheme, I intend to amend the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme in certain respects. The procedure for doing this is by means of an Order which is subject to negative Resolution and can, therefore, be debated by hon. Members if the House wishes to consider it.
The House will have realised that the Bill is a short and simple enabling Measure. I very much hope—indeed, I am sure—that it is non-controversial. I have been asked to introduce it by both sides of the dock industry and have done so gladly in the expectation that the scheme will be a source of real and lasting benefit to industrial relations in this major industry, as well as to those who work in it individually. The Joint Council is very anxious to proceed with the introduction of the scheme and the Government have speedily responded in introducing this Bill. I am glad that we have been able to take it at comparatively short notice in the House.
I commend the Bill to the House without any hesitation, and I hope that it will command support from both sides.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: We on this side of the House certainly support the Bill. It is not our idea of the way in which the Truck Acts should be amended. We have argued—during the passage, for example, of the famous Payment of Wages Act—that legislation to change completely the Truck Acts ought to be before us as soon as possible, and thus obviate the necessity of having to bring in a Bill of this character from time to time to meet a principle which all of us accept.
The Minister said that he warmly welcomed the pension scheme. I am sure that we are all very happy at the idea that there is now to be a pension scheme for dock workers. In a way, this is a posthumous testimonial to Ernest Bevin's life work. He spent much of his life in the interests of the dock workers, and rightly earned the title of the "Dockers' K.C." He became Foreign Secretary, and it is interesting that we should now be taking a further step along the road along which he started the great movement of dock workers.
When the Minister said that he warmly welcomed this scheme I had my reservations, because it is impossible for us to make any comments upon a scheme if we have not the particulars before us. When he was good enough to give us some of the principles of the scheme, my heart sank a little. I did not hear him say that there was to be any substantial contribution to a sinking fund to take care of past service. All I gathered was that there would be no provision for past service and that those who had served the industry for a very long time would probably go out with 10s. a week—not very much in modern times; it is hardly worth anything—and £100 gratuity.
It was not my intention to go into detail about the scheme, which is private and agreed by the unions and the employers. It is not our business to argue the merits or demerits of a scheme of which we have not got the details, but, as the Minister said that some people

were to go out with 10s. and £100. I cannot share the warm welcome which he gave to the scheme. We are glad of it, and most of us will want to look at its provisions as a matter of interest, but I hope that as times goes on there will be rather better provision for those dockers who served the industry in its hard days.
These are not the men who will get the good pensions—it is the young men who will benefit by this. In most pension schemes—and I say this in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for West-hough ton (Mr. J. T. Price), who is an authority on these questions, but who has now left the Chamber—one cannot reward dockers or any other workers for back service unless there is a very substantial increase in contributions, or, as is normally done, a very substantial lump sum or annual contribution to the scheme.
I have no doubt that as time goes on the two parties concerned in this will consider the scheme's provisions and will, I hope, ameliorate the position of those who have given long service and who should be the first in our minds when dealing with schemes of this character.
The Minister has made it clear that dock workers who are at present employed are not to be forced into the scheme, but may elect to join it. No doubt the majority will do so, and I hope that that will be the case. He did not say what is to happen if registers are to be reduced. If they are reduced, what will happen to those men who have made some contribution? Perhaps their contributions will be returned with some interest and the employers' contribution will go back to the sinking fund, or perhaps the employers will recoup themselves for what they have paid in.
The Minister was not able to go into details. We cannot really discuss the scheme in any detail, and, therefore, I do not propose to say any more now. But I draw attention to things which would concern us if Parliament had anything to do with the scheme, which, I assume, it has not. In so far as the Bill provides necessary legislation for a dockers' scheme to be inaugurated, we welcome it and will co-operate in giving it a speedy passage.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rees: In rising to address the House for the first time I do so, as every Member knows, with a fair amount of anxiety and trepidation. I have been here for some time now and have tried to learn the ways and the procedure of the House. The more I have listened, the more worried I have become that my contribution will not be worth all the time which the House grants me. But tonight, in this very straightforward Measure, which, I am glad to see, in non-controversial, I shall try to be brief and shall continue to be non-controversial and, in humility, ask the House for indulgence.
I intervene because the constituency which I have the honour to represent is part of the major seaports of South Wales. Both employers and employees are residents in parts of my constituency and they welcome this Bill, and it is for that reason that I am joining in this debate.
Swansea itself has a great and ancient history. It goes back for many centuries and of recent years it has gained a substantial industrial tradition. At one stage it was known as the "Metals Metropolis" of the United Kingdom. Every commercial metal used in the country was being refined there, and the principal one was copper. Copper was brought in sailing ships from Cornwall, which tied up in the River Towy, and refined. The empty ships were sent out again with coal from local pits. This trade developed as the need for ore grew. It was imported in sailing ships from Chile and distant lands, and the coal trade was expanded.
As this process went on, so the Port of Swansea and the docking industry grew. The Economist at one stage foretold a very rosy future and a vast expansion for it. That was in 1888. Now the port has reached quite large and substantial proportions. It has 226½ acres of deep water docks, extensive quays and sheds, modern cranes and modern handling facilities. It is also blessed with substantial dry docking facilities. Only last year a brand-new dry dock, 670 feet long and called the Duke of Edinburgh Dry Dock, was opened.
With the industrial changes, we have changed the types of cargo shipped and imported. World demand has changed

for our coal supplies. Welsh coal is renowned throughout the world for its quality. The emphasis on copper has changed and now we are principally an oil importing centre. It is refined there and, in addition, we export the refined products.
The Port of Swansea also has a very good general cargo trade. It is interesting to note that between 1938 and 1958 the figure has increased from 5½ million tons to 7 million tons a year. At one stage it rose to almost 11 million tons, but there has been a fall-back in the trade, partly due to a change in the industrial circumstances of the South Wales area, and also due to a recession caused by the closing down of tinplate mills and the general downward trend in the shipping industry.
In South Wales the labour force is now working at about 75 per cent. capacity. It is an excellent labour force, with an excellent record of industrial peace. This is not entirely due to the fact that there have been no differences between employers and employees. It is also due to the fairness and speed with which the conciliatory machinery has worked. At the moment more and more industry is coming into South Wales, and we hope that that situation will continue. That industry will provide a greater need for our docks. Furthermore, we hope that the roads from the Midlands and London will provide us with more products for export. As a result of all this, I am sure that trade in the South Wales ports will increase. I strongly recommend Swansea and I hope that I will be forgiven for taking this chance of publicing it. I hope that people will look at it with more favour and will use it more often.
As has been mentioned, before the war the dockers were employed upon a casual basis. Then the fixed minimum wage was introduced, bringing with it a much better basis of employment. The Bill enables the third important step to be taken. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will not expect me to follow him in his arguments about the details of the pension scheme, because we do not know them fully. Nevertheless, the fact that the dock worker will now have a pension will greatly improve his status. The Bill is designed to permit the pension scheme to come into operation.
The dock industry comprises many small employers and many employees, and whereas ordinary industrial undertakings can arrange contracts and agreements between the various parties fairly easily, it would be difficult to arrange such an agreement in the dock industry which would enable all the workers to be brought in. Unless they are brought in, however, the scheme will not be an actuarial possibility. It must, therefore, be helped by the Bill. If it proves a success I am sure that large numbers of dockers will join.
There is no doubt that when we want more labour in South Wales ports it will be necessary for the employers to be able to offer terms and conditions comparable with those of the major industries in the area. One of the most important factors enabling them to do that will be the pension. I am convinced that this pension scheme will enable employers to offer inducements, in wages and conditions, which will cause the ports to prosper.
We must not overlook the fact that Great Britain has built up its greatness on exports, trade and commerce. For many years we have looked to the dockers to enable us to maintain that position. We depend upon our exports to live, and if our exports are to arrive in good condition and in good time they must have careful and expert handling at the docks. I like the Bill, because it will add to the status of the dockers who have kept the wheels of industry turning.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards: I have been a Member of this House for over seventeen years, but this is the first time that I have had the privilege of extending a welcome to an hon. Member who has made his maiden speech. I have much pleasure in following the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) on the occasion of his maiden speech. I made my maiden speech in 1942, when the subject was Service pay and allowances. I was then still serving in the Royal Navy, and I knew a good deal about the subject.
The hon. Member has shown the House that he has paid a great deal of attention to the subject of the debate, and knows a lot about it. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will

join with me in congratulating him on his able speech, and in expressing the hope that we shall often hear from him in the future, on similar subjects and others of even wider scope.
I want to speak in the debate because I can claim to be one of the few Members who has been employed as a casual dock labourer; indeed, I may be the only one. When I came out of the Royal Navy in 1923 there was not much work to be found, even for those coming out of the Services. One of my first jobs was that of a casual dock labourer, and I was glad to get it. In those days I had to be on call at a quarter to eight in the morning in the hope of getting four hours' work. If I did not get a job, I had to sign on again. Then, at a quarter to one in the afternoon, I had to be on call in the hope of getting four hours' work again. If I was unsuccessful I had to sign on again. If, in any week of six days, I did two and a half days' work, I received no unemployment benefit. That situation continued until decasualisation in 1939.
This pension scheme has come not from the Ministry, but from the industry —from the unions—and I would like to tell the House a story which bears out what my right hon. Friend has said about Ernest Bevin. In 1935–36, when I was still a casual dock labourer, I happened to be a lay delegate to the London Short Sea Traders Joint Labour Board, composed of employers and dock labourers in the short sea trade industry. After a wage award Ernest Bevin was asked by the port employers to meet the board to try to answer the complaints of the employers concerning the failure of dockers to work late on Saturday nights and on Sundays.
I had the privilege of attending that meeting, and I remember that Ernest Bevin told the employers two things. First, he said, "Look here, friends— don't you complain about the dockers not giving you all the facilities; you do something about giving them decent conditions and incentives". He then said, "See that we get rid of the shocking casual labour situation, and provide these men with some kind of a pension at the end of their working lives". Decasualisation has come about, and there is now a guaranteed wage if no work is available, but it is not a high wage. We are still a long way from being able


to say that decasualisation has meant that the dockers receive a decent weekly wage. It is something between unemployment benefit and a weekly basic wage. At any rate, it is an improvement on the old days, when a man had to be unemployed for three days in a week before he could get unemployment benefit.
With what happened in the dock industry until the beginning of the war, and, in fact, until Ernie Bevin became Minister of Labour, one can see how important this is. Ernie Bevin's ambition was to see that the men who worked in the dock industry had something to look forward to instead of having to slave in the industry as they did in the 'twenties and 'thirties. This scheme will create a better atmosphere between workpeople and employers in the industry.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to the importance of the dock industry. If the country is to survive and keep its standards, as we want them kept, we must have a well balanced dock industry. Moreover, the workers in the industry must be satisfied with their conditions and the terms of employment. No Minister of Labour can say that he has been let down by trade union leaders representing the dockers.
Since 1920 the leaders of the Dockers Section in the Transport and General Workers' Union have been great people like Ernest Bevin and Arthur Deakin, and today Frank Cousins. He as much as other leaders wants the country to become greater than it was twenty years ago. The Government and employers have had people with great experience of the industry to advise them on the best way to control the industry to help it to make a great contribution towards the economic future of the country. We have now reached a happy stage in dock relations and the House ought to congratulate the National Joint Council of Dock Labour for introducing a scheme whereby a Conservative Government could introduce a Bill which would enable the Labour Opposition to fall readily into line with the Government's proposals.
We welcome the Bill. It is a great advance forward, but let us not forget that the economic life of the country depends on sensible joint consultation between employers and the trade unions on important matters such as this. There

are millions of people who are outside the benefits of pension schemes. The dockers are lucky to have been able to step in before some of the other workers. I express my appreciation to the Minister, his colleagues, and to the Department for the valuable assistance that they have given in seeing that the pension scheme comes into operation at the earliest possible opportunity, thus enabling the industry to function better than it has in the past both from the employers' point of view and that of the employees.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) in welcoming the Bill. I do not wish to make a long speech. I will make only a short intervention in view of my interest in the House in pensions and because of the declaration which I have made so many times from these benches of my interest in pensions and insurance. I would not wish this occasion to pass without saying how pleased I am that circumstances have arisen in this industry whereby my right hon. Friend has been enabled to bring in a Bill so that a pension scheme for 70,000 dockers can be launched.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees). I think all of us after making a maiden speech have very little idea of what we have said. When we read the OFFICIAL REPORT the next day we are delighted and this will apply in the case of my hon. Friend, because he has done two things. He has been loyal to his City and Port of Swansea, and he has done Swansea a bit of good in choosing this subject for his maiden speech. More than that, he has helped the dock workers of Swansea, and when they read his speech I am sure that they will be pleased that he chose this topic today.
One other thing that happened to my hon. Friend that will not happen again during his career in this House is that he was able to make his maiden speech on a Bill of which he understood every word. In the five years that I have been here I have never seen a Bill in which two or three sentences were so clearly stated. It has not been necessary to see barristers, solicitors, the Cabinet, accountants, or any professional people, or to consult the Library. We have been able to understand the Bill. Indeed, it


is such an epic occasion that I wonder whether I ought to have the Bill autographed by Mr. Speaker and then frame it.
It is not often that both sides of the House are as united as we are this evening. It is a happy occasion and it is pleasing to note that one of the odd occasions on which we are united on pensions is the occasion on which we are proposing to do something for the benefit of that great army of workers, the dockers. What a tribute it is to Ernest Bevin that 70,000 dockers in 1,100 separate entities are welded together in one pension scheme!
When one reads the history of Ernest Bevin's life, it is a tribute to him that it has been possible to weld the dockers together in this Bill. I spent a large part of the Easter Recess reading the first part of the life of Ernest Bevin. When we think of the years between 1940 and 1945 we think of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), but when we think of the dockers throughout the history of this half century we shall think of the name of Ernest Bevin—a truly great man. Of course, the biography is written by a famous son of a famous city. I need hardly say that Alan Bullock is a Brad-fordian. He was educated at Bradford Grammar School, so I had a very great interest in reading the book.
One of the things that has come about in all the pension debates which have taken place in this House during the last two or three years is the wider interest in the country in pension schemes for the ordinary chap at the lathe and at the bench. That has been engendered by the debates that have taken place in this House and those schemes were given an incentive by the booklet published by the Opposition two or three years ago entitled "National Superannuation", and by the Government's new Bill on pensions which comes into operation next year. It will be a very good thing if the example which has been set in this widely dispersed industry can be followed in industries like farming, which is so widely spread and diverse, and the building industry.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will agree that when Ernest Bevin set out to establish

the first principle of a pension scheme for the dockers, almost a generation ago —and this is faithfully recorded in the biography by Alan Bullock—he did so with a view to curing the dreadful unemployment which was the scourge of the dockers and the whole country in those days. In other words, his thoughts were not on the benefits of a pension in retirement, but on a cure for unemployment in that the payment of £1 a week, which was what he wished to be paid, would allow older employees to leave the industry and so permit younger men to take their jobs.
What a happy thing it is—and I am sure that Ernest Bevin would be very glad about the change if he were hereto see the completely different reason for the introduction of the Bill. Not for a moment is it suggested that the Bill is introduced as a cure for unemployment. It is introduced for the very thing for which pensions were invented and which can be stated in three simple words-happy old age.
I do not wish to delay the House when it is so united, but I hope that the hon. Member for Stepney will allow me to say that, although he said that the scheme has been brought about by the unions, the greatest progress in pensions over the last forty years has come from employers themselves and almost all of the 40,000 schemes—

Mr. W. Edwards: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no incentive whatsoever from the port employers for a pension scheme and that they have been more or less forced by the unions in the industry to have such a scheme.

Mr. Tiley: I accept that completely because the hon. Member has a much wider knowledge of this industry than I have, but perhaps he will allow me to say that in other industries great encouragement for these schemes has come from the employers.
I am glad that the principle of the payment of a lump sum on retirement has been established in the scheme. If there is one omission from the Socialist national superannuation scheme it is that a man who had contributed to the pension fund all his working life, from 25 to 65, will find at the end of the day that all his savings are tied up in pension


only. It is a very good thing for people on retirement to have at least a moderate lump sum.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend one question. When the Government Actuary made his extensive review of pension schemes, he found about 40,000 in existence The majority are contributory and have therefore been introduced with deductions made from the weekly wage packet without the publication of a Bill to permit that deduction. It has been done merely by the employee signing a card containing, first, the statement, "I wish to join the scheme", and, secondly. "I agree to the deduction from my wage of the amount of the weekly contribution."
It would be a very good thing if it could be made perfectly clear that that is a legal method of dealing with the deduction from the wage packet.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: The hon. Member began by saying that this was the first Bill which he had understood word for word since first coming to the House five years ago. He welcomed the mention of a lump sum being given for the dockers. Where is that mentioned?

Mr. Tiley: If the hon. Member had been in attendance throughout the whole of the proceedings—

Mr. Delargy: I have the Bill before me.

Mr. Tiley: Let me reply. I do not mind the interruption, but if the hon. Member had been with us all the time, he would have heard my right hon. Friend give the details of the scheme.

Mr. Delargy: That does not answer the question.

Mr. Tiley: Every hon. Member present knows where the £100 is coming from. It is not coming from Littlewoods, Vernons, or Premium Bonds. My right hon. Friend explained it at the beginning of the debate and if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that that intervention was not necessary.
I am very glad that the scheme is being launched and that my right hon. Friend has been able to bring the Bill to the House quickly. I hope that we shall

give it a speedy passage and that the new scheme will soon be able to start.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I begin at a slight disadvantage compared with my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards). All during my industrial life, when I have tried to adjudicate upon dockers' problems, the dockers have always reminded me that I was not a docker. I have always been at a disadvantage with dockers, and I have always had to start work half-an-hour before dockers. However, I have an advantage over my hon. Friend in that while he was in the Senior Service I served with the Royal Engineers and there had some experience of the great work which the dockers did.
I must tell the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) that we do not agree about the whole of this pensions scheme, and it would not take us very long to fall out with many people about its extent. What we completely agree with is the principle, for the first time in history, of giving dockers a pension.
I welcome the Bill, but I must not get into the habit of congratulating the right hon Gentleman too frequently. Nevertheless, I am very pleased with him this evening for being able to introduce the Bill, and I am not being in the slightest churlish when I say that it is long overdue.
If we are in the mood for being reminiscent, I can remember the first industrial composition which I wrote as a young scaler boy of 14 when I was taking a course in the Transport and General Workers' Union and wrote a thesis on the 1889 dockers' strike. I can remember doing a very great deal of research on that. What annoys me so much with the malcontents in the dock industry today is that many of them do not know the first thing about the history of the industry in which they are working. I suppose that few of them would believe that a great prelate of the Roman Catholic Church was a strike leader in 1889, Cardinal Manning, a contemporary of Cardinal Newman. He joined in the strike in 1889 for the famous "Docker's Tanner", along with great trade unionists like Tom Mann and Ben Tillett. That is all part of history, but it is an indication of how long someone has been most remiss in not bringing


dignity into the lives of those who work in this great industry.
From the beginning of my working life I have appreciated that the greatest word in industry is "dignity". This pension scheme, small as it may be, will bring additional dignity into the lives of many men who have been deprived of it in this sense before.
The Bill is to apply to pensions for dock workers, but "dock workers" is a rather ambiguous term. Anyone who knows a great port like Liverpool or London knows that the Bill will apply only to those people who are registered as National Dock Labour Board employees.
"Dock workers" could be a misnomer. There might be many people in the country who are dock workers and have spent all their working lives on the docks who may think they will be included in this Bill. Every one of us in our turn have met people in employment on the docks who have spent, say, twenty-five years at sea and twenty-five years on the docks in one capacity or another outside the registration of dockers. After fifty years at sea and on the docks, working in the port, they find they are not covered by any type of industrial pension.
It is not surprising to me, and never has been, as one born on the Liverpool dockside, that there has been great industrial trouble. What surprises me is that there has been so little. Once he gets a glimpse of what other people are getting in industry and in local government, it is no wonder that the dock labourer becomes annoyed and discontented. I am grateful to the Minister for giving an outline of this scheme. As has been pointed out, there is no mention of the scheme in the Bill. When we compare the figures in the scheme with pensions in local government and for the "lush" people in industry, we find that approximately 2s. 6d. is asked for from the dockers and 5s. from the employer so that an old man, who probably has spent all his life in the industry, gets a 10s. pension, whereas in industry a younger man will come out with 40s.

Mr. Heath: Plus the lump sum.

Mr. Mahon: Plus the lump sum. We should compare that with the police pension. Why should there be such a disparity between what the dock labourer gets in pension and what a policeman receives? Why should there be so much disparity between people in local government who come out with approximately two-thirds of their salary and a dock labourer, who has been doing arduous, difficult work and is doled out with a parsimonious pension? I am not blaming the Minister. He is clearing the way, and we are most grateful to him, but I hope this is the beginning of a new era and that the pension will be looked at and constantly increased.
In industry, I always felt deprived of a sense of belonging. From the very first day I went into industry I felt I was de-personalised and not part of the great scheme, albeit that my great grandfather helped to build the docks in Liverpool. Only the money and those who owned it survived; the labour applied to the docks and its results died. We have to do something so that people may become personalised in the industry and belong to the industry. A pension can do that by giving a man a sense of belonging.
Mention has been made of Ernest Bevin. Of all the men I have ever known he was the one I most revered. He was a friend of my father when de-casualisation came to Liverpool. That was a great landmark in our history, and things which helped, like holidays and sickness benefit facilities, were of course good, but in spite of that, we still have not achieved the good industrial relations which I want to see in the Port of Liverpool.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) on the excellence of his maiden speech. He spoke of new industries coming to Swansea. There is a great change coming to Liverpool. We have been very fortunate in having six or seven new factories attracted to that industrial area. The acquisition of those factories came as a blessing to the whole port and will affect the whole society in Liverpool.
When those firms come with their better pensions schemes it will behove those concerned to improve the dockers' scheme in order to meet the challenge


of competition for employment. Therefore, I not only welcome the scheme, but also the acquisition of Ford's, Vauxhall's and other factories, which, as the Minister of Labour told us, will bring 20,000 new jobs to Merseyside. I hope I live to see the day when that happens and when we have the prosperity which those things should bring, but we must have better industrial relations.
There are people in Liverpool who have a vested interest in destroying good relationships. This cannot be said too often. They put political loyalty to the Communist Party above any loyalty they have for their fellow workers. This is one of the things I have spoken about for many a long day. It is no use bringing all these things into industry while we have these malcontents. One of the things I want to speak about is the need for a real attempt to bring into the Port of Liverpool the sort of relationship which can add to its greatness and which, when these new industries come, will mean that we shall have a higher degree of prosperity.
Let us look at the condition for the Liverpool docks from the point of view of unity. The Transport and General Workers Union has played a great part in bringing this scheme to fruition. It is the only bona fide union for the organisation of dock labour within the scheme. By virtue of the difficulties we have had, there are at the moment three groups on the docks, the Transport and General Workers Union people, the "blue" union people—on whom I pass no comment— and another great group of people who have become disillusioned and have dropped out of any sort of trade union organisation. If this legislation is to be a success, it has to be operated by agreement and by people who join the pensions scheme maintaining themselves in it. Unless we are very careful, even this scheme could become a bone of contention for those who have that sort of mind and want to exploit that sort of situation one against another.
I am sorry to bring a discordant note into these proceedings, but I have had a great deal of experience and have had my eyes opened to what these people will do. In Liverpool, we need unity of labour and getting back into the only organisation which is allowed to organise dock labour there. I want to give some words

of advice to the Transport and General Workers Union. Many things have happened. The "blue" union was born, maybe out of genuine discontent. There is always discontent and it can be exploited, but the discontent was genuine enough before the exploitation, which was wrong.
Now, after five or six years, there is the desire for the whole working population to become one again. I want the Transport and General Workers Union to listen to my voice tonight. There is no more knowledgeable person in Liverpool on the question of labour problems than myself. I say that throwing humility to the winds. I have two or three generations of this experience behind me. The great desire is to get back into that union and to take full advantage of legislation of this kind.
I want the Transport and General Workers' Union to declare an amnesty in respect of all the difficulties which have occurred and to throw the doors wide open again so that they will accept and admit those men who have been slightly recalcitrant in the past. That is the only way in which we can bring back unity to the docks, and, having brought back unity, can go further and further towards a greater dignity in this great industry.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I do not intend to delay the House unduly, but I wish to welcome, as others have welcomed, the introduction of the Bill. The words which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) has just uttered are typical of a Member of the House whom we have come to respect and admire over the years. He always speaks with great knowledge and sincerity. I very much hope that the words which he used tonight will be read by all those to whom he addressed them, because any contribution which he can make towards solving the problems of the docks will be appreciated by all concerned.
Much of what I shall say may appear to be repetition, but this is a unique occasion, because, for the first time in the history of dockland, we have the introduction of the possibilities of a pension scheme. That is what the Bill does; it is an enabling Bill, which means that through it a pension scheme can


be introduced. Some details have been given of this scheme, but it would be wrong for me to go into detail. I think that we may take it for certain that this is the first and not the last pension scheme for dockers. I am sure that other schemes will follow in its wake— and they will be better schemes.
I know that I carry with me my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), who has a greater personal knowledge even than I have of this subject, when I pay tribute to some of those who have organised this pension scheme and battled against the most appalling difficulties. In particular, I pay tribute to Mr. O'Leary, the National Docks Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I know how hard he has worked and the months of time that he has given to the job.
One of the problems in the introduction of this scheme has not been the lack of good will on the part of many of the big employers, but the fact that in this industry there are many small employers. The Minister quoted a figure of 1,100 employers in the scheme, the vast majority of whom are very small. The trouble in dealing with this great body of men is that many of these employers, even if they had the good will, have not had the necessary cash. To launch a scheme of this kind without financial stability at the beginning of it was tremendously difficult, and that is why it has taken certain people many hours to get it under way. This is only a beginning.
Hon. Members have mentioned Ernest Bevin. I am young compared with them in their knowledge of the docks, but I, too, worshipped Ernest Bevin. He represented the best of the Labour and the trade union movements. When we lost Ernest Bevin we lost a great House of Commons man and a great Briton. He would certainly have been pleased to know that at long last we have this pension scheme, although I suspect that some of his remarks about certain aspects of it would have been a little caustic.
There is one other person I want to mention who was associated with the scheme and did a lot of work for it— George Isaacs. He introduced the de-casualisation proposals which had been

initiated earlier by Ernest Bevin. George Isaacs will be pleased to know that this scheme has come about. He was always a very great friend of the dock worker, although he himself was not a docker. No docker could have had a better friend than George Isaacs, and we in the Labour Party could not have had a better Member of Parliament than we had in him throughout the many years that he was in the House. He was a first-class Minister of Labour. He had a wonderful fund of humour. We can send a message to George Isaacs tonight that this Bill is a Bill which he would have been proud to introduce.
Comments have been made about the dockers of yesteryear. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle in what he said about the docker of today and about the fact that there is now a dignity with the job. It is no longer the custom to describe the docker in almost scathing terms. We have heard from hon. Members opposite tributes properly paid to the importance of the docker in the nation's economy. That importance needs to be stressed a little more often. Each and every person in the industry has his contribution to make.
I cannot go back to the times which my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney mentioned; I remember these things only as a youngster. As my hon. Friends have said, in the past they saw some very hard days. There were times when some sections of society regarded it as almost shameful to be a dock worker. Thank goodness, we have moved away from those days when the dockers were not expected to have dignity and were always expected to accept casual employment as part of their lot.
Recently, I had a discussion with a man who is regarded as a very progressive employer in dockland and he was complaining bitterly that a number of strikes which had taken place in his firm were not his responsibility. He said that they had been created in other firms and for other reasons, but the next thing he knew was that the men on his wharf were on strike, although it had nothing to do with him. He complained about this bitterly and he said, "One of the problems here is that these men do not seem to owe me any loyalty." I said to him, "What do you expect? You cannot expect men to be loyal to a firm


which one day wants 150 workers and the next day wants only 10. If you discharge 140 men the next day as being unimportant and unwanted, you cannot expect loyalty. You cannot treat human beings like that."
If we are talking about dignity and loyalty, we must think of this pension scheme and remember that this is one way in which there can be stability in the dock industry. The dockers must have the things about which Ernest Bevin dreamed in the early days. It must be an industry in which the man who starts on Monday morning knows that he has security of employment and decent treatment, in which there is stability and in which the man is not put aside at the end of the day. This is only the tail-end of the kind of conditions which Ernest Bevin tried so hard to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney was quite right to say that we talk of decasualisation as if it means that no longer have we any of the problems of yesteryear. There still are problems, because in spite of the great efforts of the trade unions the minimum wage of these men is still not high enough. It still leaves room for complaint in dockland. That is not the fault of the unions.
I will tell the House what I should like to see in dockland. I say this on my own responsibility, and neither the unions nor any other Member of the House is involved in what I say. What I should like to see for this great industry is a few employers and every man employed in the docks a permanent, regular man, with holidays with pay and with a first-class pension scheme. This can be done only when the employers are limited in number and they have the resources and power which are needed in the industry.
Hon. Members who go to Germany can see the wonderful docks at Hamburg. They were built by the State, but much of them was wiped out during the war. The conditions under which many of our men work today cannot be compared with those at Hamburg. That is not the fault of the dock workers and, in a way, it is not the fault of the employers because, to be frank, the employers have not had enough capital.
One day the Government will accept responsibility for the reorganisation and rationalisation of our own docks indus-

try. If we are to compete with the foreigners, we cannot go on in the way we have gone on during the last few decades, with a docks industry which, to a large extent, is out of date. This scheme is a beginning. Those concerned with bringing it forward deserve every credit. I should be the last to criticise any detail of the scheme, because I know how hard everyone concerned has worked to achieve it. However, I wish to ask one question.
The Minister said that a lump sum was to be payable. I understood that it was to be payable to the older man—the 10s. man—and that he would get £100. Then I understood the Minister to say, when he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, that the £100 would be paid in any case. What is the position about that?

Mr. Heath: The £100 lump sum applies to the 10s. pensioner at the first stage of the scheme. At the other end of the scheme, the £2 man will not get the £100 lump sum.

Mr. Mellish: I am obliged. That is my understanding. It is right that that should go on record, otherwise the word will go out from the House that everyone contributing to the scheme is to get the lump sum, and we do not want to start the scheme with a misunderstanding like that. I am only too glad to join in with a warm welcome for the introduction of the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I also want to give a warm welcome to the Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward at this time. It is a very modest start. With the passage of time there is bound to be improvement of the scheme from this initial start. I am delighted whenever another body of workers is brought within the ambit of a pension scheme. Millions of workers are still retiring from their employment with no pension available to them.
These distinctions among workers are bad. It is iniquitous, because one is conniving at a situation in which many families, after the wage earner retires, have to undergo a reduced standard of living as compared with other workers who have managed, through the organisation of their trade union, to get a pension scheme started, even if on a modest scale.
I feel that the scheme will improve and that dock workers will think that this is a very big occasion indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) represent many more dock workers than I do, but there are several small ports and harbours in my constituency where registered dock labourers are employed. Consequently, I want to be associated with the welcome which has been expressed to the Bill.
I think that the Bill applies to Scotland. The name of one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland is appended to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was sitting with us on the Government Front Bench until a minute or two ago. I do not know if he departed from the Chamber because I rose to speak, but I hope that he will return to answer my points, because I do not want to embarrass the Minister of Labour with small Scottish points. The right hon. Gentleman should not have to answer those points when the name of a Scottish Minister appears on the Bill.
There has been no great publicity of the inauguration of the pension scheme. Is there complete unanimity in Scotland among the employing agencies in the ports and docks? I do not know just how strong the employers' organisation is who control dock workers in Scotland. Some of the harbours are very small, but there are harbour boards and dockers are employed. May I have an assurance that, even though they are small in comparison with the other docks mentioned tonight, the men employed there are within the ambit of the Bill?
I understood the Minister to say that 70 years is the age when men retire with a lump sum of £100 and a pension of 10s. a week, but is there to be any measure of agreement about elasticity in regard to age according to local circumstances? When we talk about £2 a week, do we refer to a definite period of years, or is there a graduated scale, according to years of service, to apply to men retiring after the start of the scheme?
I believe that this is a voluntary scheme. Can the Minister tell us anything about the method of ascertaining the numbers who may want to join it? I suppose that the vast majority of the men

will want to come in, but I would like to be assured that some definite invitation will be circulated in the pay packets, so that every docker can understand the scheme and can sign an application form, which should also be enclosed.
Although we have no Scottish Member present at this moment, the right hon. Gentleman knows about these small Scottish harbours, ports and docks that are doing very good work. I want to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney; in promoting a scheme like this we are doing much to bolster and strengthen a section of industry that has a great and close connection with our export trade.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) mentioned this in a maiden speech, on which I congratulate him. The better the facilities we can provide at our docks, harbours and ports the better will the goods be taken care of, and they will be delivered in better condition than they would be with a dissatisfied force. That is much better for this country and its trade. I hope that the entire scheme will apply to Scotland, England and Wales, no matter what the size of the port.
I believe that Northern Ireland is excluded. Is that because the people there already have a pensions scheme? If they have not got such a scheme, where are all the Northern Ireland Members tonight? Why are they not asking about it? In their constituencies they have vast docks and great numbers of dock workers, and they must have some interest in an occasion like this—

Mr. Mellish: They have 7 per cent. unemployment there, too.

Mr. Manuel: I understand that in the dock areas of certain parts of Northern Ireland unemployment is running at the rate of 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. If there is not a pensions scheme there, and the reason is lack of co-operation by some bodies in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Minister will take what steps are possible—

Mr. Heath: The 1946 Act itself does not apply to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Manuel: Where there is a will there is a way. Quite apart from this being an enabling Bill stemming from the 1946 Act, if we willed a scheme like


this for Northern Ireland dockers we would see that they got it in some way or other. If the Minister now says that he is concerned about the dock workers and the port authorities of Northern Ireland being brought into line with those at the Welsh, English and Scottish ports and will later introduce a Bill to that end, I congratulate him, and wish him every success.

8.40 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: It would be ungenerous if I did not welcome this enabling Bill and express the thanks of the Southampton dockers to the Minister for it, especially as my colleague in Southampton, the hon. Member for the Test Division (Mr. J. Howard), is the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, and, by the etiquette of the House, is debarred from joining in welcoming the Bill.
This is, indeed, the beginning of something very worth while. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) compared the provisions which arise from this enabling Bill with those which obtain for the police and local government workers. The fundamental difference, it seems to me, is that this enables employer and employee to make contributions to a superannuation fund, whereas in the other kind of superannuation fund the Government make a contribution. I hope that the day will come when dock workers and. indeed, all workers will enjoy the kind of superannuation to look forward to in their old age that is enjoyed by millions of people in the professions.
It is worth while, on this occasion, reminding ourselves how much we owe to the dockers of Britain. In wartime, we could not have survived but for the work that was done by the men at the docks. In peacetime, we could not have built up our export trade but for the dock workers. Tomorrow, I shall be speaking outside the dock gates in Southampton, as I have done every year for the last thirty-five years on municipal election day, and as this Bill is before the House I am reminded of the very different kind of audiences that I have had outside Southampton dock gates during these thirty-five years. I am reminded, too, of how decasualisation has come and— much more important—how labour relations have improved. This Measure is

the produce of gool labour relationships between good employers, on the one hand, and responsible union leadership, on the other.
As I said, this is only a beginning. While it is true that there are officially and regularly engaged in the docks about 70,000 workers who will benefit from the Bill, outside Southampton Docks every day this week and, indeed, during the last two years, early in the mornings, men have been waiting to be taken on as casual labour—standing in all weathers without any kind of protection. I have raised this matter with the Minister on previous occasions, and I hope that the present Minister will do all he can to extend the principle of decasualisation until it applies to every worker who is associated with the docks. I regard this Bill as a step forward in the advance towards the conception of the dignity of human labour, and I hope that it will extend in a number of spheres as the years go by.
It is worth while, in a House of Commons which is paying tribute to that greatest of trade union leaders, that great servant of Britain and of the dock workers, Ernie Bevin, to recognise that we could not have achieved this modest beginning of superannuation for the dock workers if it had not been for the organisation that the dock workers have built up during the last fifty years in the trade union movement, and the great leaders which that movement has produced. I congratulate the Minister on introducing a really worth-while Bill.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: This has been a debate consisting of a number of short speeches all of which have welcomed the Bill, and I, too, wish to be brief in welcoming it.
I should like, first of all, to add my congratulations to those that have been extended to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) on his maiden speech. I think he observed all the traditions connected with a maiden speech, including the tradition of being non-controversial. If he had been controversial he might have added another cause to the list of causes connected with the decline of trade in the South Wales ports. He might have added the policy of the Government to the list of causes But perhaps it would not be in


keeping with the spirit of the situation if I were to talk about that.
A number of my hon. Friends have spoken on the Bill—hon. Members with experience of the dock industry and representing dockland constituencies. I cannot help feeling that, to some extent, it has been a field day for members of the Transport and General Workers' Union in the House. As one of those, I am glad to score that point, although, of course, we have not had quite a closed shop and other hon. Members have joined in.
Several hon. Members have referred to Ernest Bevin. I am now reading Alan Bullock's life of the late Ernest Bevin, and I do not think that anyone reading that book could fail to be impressed by Bevin's very long struggle for the dock worker and by the tremendous gifts he brought to it. One is impressed, also, by the essential difficulties of his task in the dock industry because of the way in which its fortunes have been so sensitive to the general trade level and the tremendous human cost in dockland of every fall in our trade and what this has meant for the people concerned.
As one reads the story, one realises how long it took to have the principles of a dock register and a basic minimum wage accepted in the industry. Yet, while he was fighting for those things, Bevin brought in the idea of a pension for dock workers. I agree, therefore, with all those who have said that he would have been glad to know that a start at long last was being made.
I have two personal reasons for welcoming the Bill. As a member for some years of the staff of the Transport and General Workers' Union, I was concerned in arguing the cases of dockers, among others, who suffered industrial accidents. Of course, the House will not need to be reminded that the dock industry has a much higher accident rate than the average. In doing that work, one was always conscious of the fact that if, for various legal reasons, one failed to obtain proper compensation for an injured docker, he was in a particularly bad position because of the lack of any satisfactory pension scheme in the industry. In that sense, the docker was worse off than some other workers. My other personal reason for being glad

to make a brief contribution to this debate is that I represent a dockland constituency and several constituents have written to me since I was elected and emphasised the need for a pension scheme in the docks.
My own view of the pension scheme itself is that it is a modest one, and, from the ideal point of view, too modest. One would like to see the scheme going much further than it does. However, in saying that, I feel that we should give credit to the people who fought for it and negotiated it, and we must recognise the difficulties of an industry with more than 1,100 firms involved in the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that this should be a first pension scheme and we look forward to our sights being raised in the future, the union asking for more and the employing side granting more. We hope that we shall have a much more ambitious pension scheme for dock workers in the years to come. The very fact that this scheme has been brought in at all, I think, is a sign of the relatively good relations which exist in the dock industry today compared with relations at several times since the war. This is something which we all welcome.
The Bill provides that the Truck Acts shall not apply in respect of this scheme. My first comment on that echoes what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said—it shows the extent to which the Truck Acts are out of date and it illustrates once more the need for overhaul of this legislation. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give us any more news about progress being made by the Karmel Committee and if, or when, we can expect any Government decision about new legislation to deal with the matter.
My second comment is this. The Minister told us that this was one of a series of Bills which would be necessary to amend the Truck Acts in order to bring in a pension scheme for manual workers. He referred to the Port of London Authority and certain of the nationalised industries which were involved. What really impresses me is that the list is still a very short one. In fact, the bulk of manual workers in this country are not yet covered by proper pension schemes.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) spoke about the spread of pension schemes. There has been a spread, but it has very largely been a spread among black-coated workers and manual workers in nationalised industries. The spread has not very much affected the manual worker in private industry. The very fact that the Truck Acts have not needed to be amended more on this point is an indication of that. Indeed, when there is a pension scheme for manual workers, and this applies to the one we are considering today, it is usually a much more modest scheme—too modest—compared with the pension schemes for black-coated workers.
We should remind ourselves that this scheme for dock workers will be in addition to the Government's own supplementary pensions to be introduced next year. I cannot resist saying that it is a comment on the inadequacy of the Government's supplementary pensions. Their supplementary pensions are to supplement the basic pension and this is to supplement that pension, but it still will not provide the dock worker with a total pension as large as he is entitled to have.

Mr. Mellish: There was a delay in the finality of the scheme because of the General Election. If the Labour Party had been returned as the Government of the day, this scheme would never have come before us because our national scheme would have been accepted.

Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me to make my last point. We on this side of the House believe that everybody should have a decent superannuation scheme. We had in mind the introduction of a national superannuation scheme to cover all those who do not have a proper scheme at work. Unfortunately, we are delayed for a period of a year or two at least in putting that into operation. Meanwhile we must welcome any private scheme that begins to make some provision for workers hitherto left out. We regard this as a beginning, welcome it as such, and hope that in due course in the dock industry and other industries there will be really ambitious pension schemes for the manual workers.

8.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) said that it was not often that the House was so united on the subject of pensions. I should like to keep it as united as possible. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the fascinating matters he introduced at the end of his speech.
It is not my intention to speak at any length, but I should like to take the opportunity, at the end of this pleasant debate, to thank all hon. Members who have spoken for the very warm welcome they have given to this small but, I think every one will agree, important Bill. It has received the approval and commendation of every hon. Member who has spoken.
I join with those hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) on his maiden speech. It is a delight to me to do so, because I was in Swansea yesterday and I know the constituency he represents so well. I think it is the general feeling of the House that he did justice to his constituency in his first speech in this Chamber. It is very appropriate that he should have chosen this Bill; first, because it was non-controversial and, also, because it is a Bill which I am sure will commend itself to many of my hon. Friend's constituents. I think it can be said that although there may have been difficulties experienced in the ports of South Wales, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North said, nevertheless there is a future for the port of Swansea. I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to refer to this great port and area in his maiden speech.
There are one or two matters which perhaps I should mention on points put forward by hon. and right hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) paid tribute, as indeed did so many hon. Members, to the late Ernest Bevin. It is right that I should pay tribute as well, not only to that very great trade union leader and statesman, but also to the many people who over many years have co-operated in order to bring about the situation that obtains in the docks today.
The right hon. Member for Blyth posed one or two questions about the pensions scheme. As he rightly said, it would not be proper for us to go into the merits or demerits of the scheme, which is a scheme proposed by the industry itself. However, I have made certain enquiries into the points he raised. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, it is not intended that there should be a sinking fund, but I am informed that any person who is regarded as a genuine docker and who has been in the industry for twelve months can join the scheme. After he has joined, if a dock worker who has been in the industry for 12 months reaches the age of 65, having made one or two payments, he would, if he retired, be immediately entitled to the 10s. a week pension plus the lump sum of £100.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the reduction of the register. I am told that, in the event of someone leaving the industry, provision is made for the contribution to be either transferred or paid back to him at 3½ per cent. compound interest.
The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), in a speech which was most interesting, because he spoke from experience, referred to the difficulties of the past when people were engaged in casual work at the docks. I think he would be the first to agree that the provision of a pension is a tremendous advance. As I see it, a pension emphasises, possibly more than anything, the permanent character of the employment and also security of the employment.

Mr. W. Edwards: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary realises that I emphasised the importance of the pension, but at the same time I said that it has not come as a result of Government action but as a result of pressure on the part of the unions in the dock industry.

Mr. Thomas: I have not for a moment suggested that the pension has come as a result of Government action. It has come as a result of concerted action in the industry. The national joint council of the industry has prepared the scheme, and it has asked us whether we would introduce this Bill because it was somewhat concerned about the operation of the Truck Acts. I do not think that my

right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour attempted to take any credit for the pension scheme. I certainly do not do so.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) said that he was somewhat concerned about the inadequacy of the pension scheme. I am sure that he will agree, however, that it would not be right for me to comment on that point. The hon. Member for East Ham, North was right when he spoke on this matter. The scheme will not be contracted out of the graduated part of the new National Insurance scheme, which will come into force in April next year. The benefits of the scheme will be additional to the full graduated retirement pensions. I also hope that the Bill will contribute in some measure to better industrial relations and to better harmony among the unions. I hope that in the great city of Liverpool it will have some effect of that sort.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) paid tribute to those who have brought about the scheme. He mentioned particularly Mr. O'Leary. I, too, pay tribute to Mr. O'Leary and others on both sides of the industry who have worked hard and have brought about a scheme which, I hope, will be of far reaching effect.
I do not know whether I can answer all the questions of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). He asked whether the Scottish employers would be behind the scheme. I am informed that the majority of Scottish employers are members of the National Association of Port Employers, which certainly is 100 per cent. behind the scheme.
The hon. Member also asked about the retirement age. It is 65 and not 70, as the hon. Member thought. As the hon. Member said, it is a graduated scheme, but it is not voluntary. It is a compulsory scheme. It is voluntary inasmuch as people at present in the industry can join if they wish, but once they have joined they cannot contract out. New entrants to the register are compelled to join.

Mr. W. Edwards: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the retirement age is 65. I do not want to go into the details of the scheme, and I do not consider it right and proper to do so until


they have been before the trade union delegate conference. Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that to the public or to the dockers it might appear to be a mistake to say that the retirement age is 65, because, from what I understand, the £100 gratuity goes to those dockers now working who are aged 70 and over. I do not know whether that is correct.

Mr. Thomas: It may be. I can only give the House what I have been told. I am told that the benefits are, first, retirement pensions, at the age of 65 or over, varying between 10s. per week plus £100 lump sum at one end of the scale and 40s. a week at the other end; secondly, ill-health retirement benefits and pensions, and thirdly, death benefits. These are intended to be additional to what may be received under the State scheme, and there is provision for transfer to and from private schemes. That is all the information I have. Clearly, one cannot go in detail into a scheme of this sort, because it will have to be worked out in the industry. In opening the debate, however, my right hon. Friend referred to the scheme and a number of questions have been asked, and I can only give the House what little information I have.

Mr. Manuel: The point I was making was that it was voluntary for existing registered dockers. The fault is mine if I did not make myself clear.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked about Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend said when he intervened, the scheme operates by virtue of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946,

which does not apply to Northern Ireland. So far as any legislation of this sort is either desirable or necessary, it is a matter for the Northern Ireland Parliament and not for this Parliament.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said that the scheme was a step forward in the conception of the dignity of human labour. We agree with that. The debate has shown a desire on the part of the House to facilitate the introduction of a pension scheme in the dock industry. As has been said, it will be a notable achievement to cover by a single scheme so many manual workers. It is true that existing dock workers will have the option of joining or staying out, but the option will extend to over 70,000 registered dock workers, as my right hon. Friend said. Whatever proportion chooses to join in the first instance—the whole House will hope that it will be a high proportion—it will certainly increase as the years go by as membership of the scheme is to be compulsory for new entrants to the industry.
The Bill is intended for a simple purpose, and we have endeavoured to draft it in a simple way. It is gratifying to know that it has the general approbation of all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and I am sure that the House will be delighted to give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HIRE-PURCHASE AND CREDIT SALES

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960. No. 762), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to speak to all three Motions, namely, in addition, the Motions
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Hiring Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 763), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled.
and
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Hiring (Rebates) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 764), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled.
and have a vote on each?

Mr. Jay: If that is agreeable to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it will be convenient to us.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be convenient for the House to take all three Motions together.

Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friends and I have put down this Prayer tonight against the Government's new hire-purchase restrictions because we do not believe that the House should let these restrictive Orders pass without some protest against the rather opportunist and cynical fashion in which the economic policy of the Government is being conducted at present. If there is really no connection at all between the rather sudden plunges from restriction to expansion and then from expansion to restriction in the Government's policy, on the one hand, and the dates of General Elections on the other, I must say that the coincidence has been rather remarkable over recent years.
In 1955 we had an election following a Budget of largesse in May, followed by the Home Secretary's famous restrictive Budget in October. This time we

had an election in October and we have a bout of new restrictions now in May, just six months later in either case between the electoral largesse, on the one hand, and the hang-over on the other. The coincidence is rather striking. I hope that it does not mean that British industry must go through another three years or so of stagnation before we have an expansionist move a few months before some future election. I know that the Government do not use the word "hang-over". The fashionable word is "overstrain" to describe the malady from which we are now supposed to be suffering, but I think that the meaning is very much the same.
I know that the President of the Board of Trade is in the habit of asking us on this side of the House whether we think restraint unnecessary now or that expansion was unnecessary a year ago. Our answer is that the expansion should have come earlier, in the earlier months of 1958 and not in the earlier months of 1959. Looking back over this story now, it is perfectly obvious that the 1959 Budget should have come in the spring of 1958 when the stagnation in our economy was just as intense and when, incidentally, the overseas prospect was a good deal easier. But the Chancellor refused to do in the spring of 1958 what the national welfare demanded. He was perfectly ready to do it in the spring of 1959 when it suited the electoral convenience of the party opposite —and in opportunism the present Chancellor has very little to learn from the Home Secretary.
However, having now got the country into economic difficulties again, no doubt some restraint must be applied. We would not deny that. In asking the Government to consider whether the Orders now before us are the right sort or restraint, the House might well recall what the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System, benefiting incidentally by the Home Secretary's misfortunes in 1955, had to say about this business of controlling hire purchase. The Radcliffe Committee thought, first of all, that when a Government resorted to these emergency restrictions, as it called them, a pause—that means a pause in the Government's rake's progress—ought to be enforced by what the Committee called an "established convention" which might


or might not have legislative expression. It said that
… the imposition of the emergency controls . should be made the occasion for a debate in Parliament.
We have at least the authority of the Committee in initiating this debate tonight. Then Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues said:
We name these three as the channels to be controlled in emergency … bank advances, capital issues and consumer credit …
The Committee defined emergencies against which these weapons should be used, in its opinion, as either a catastrophic slump or a headlong inflation—and even the threat of headlong inflation was to be regarded as an emergency—and went on to recommend the Chancellor to do what he is now doing.
I am intrigued to see that these three Orders contain the word "emergency". There, at any rate, the President of the Board of Trade is in harmony with the Radcliffe Committee. Nevertheless, I am surprised to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are afraid of headlong inflation at this stage. The language of the Budget speech a month ago did not sound quite as gloomy as that. That is the type of emergency for which the Radcliffe Committee recommended this particular medicine.
So impartial a Committee as that would never have called the situation "post-electoral hang-over" or anything of that kind. I know that the Chancellor likes to use the word "overstrain" at the moment to describe the disease from which we are suffering. One of the difficulties of this particular treatment for overstrain, that is to say, a sudden stepping-up of hire-purchase restrictions, is that one hits rather hard, every few months, particular industries, mainly engineering in the present case.
These industries are expected—and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) will agree that this affects the motor vehicle industry—to step up production at a great rate and then to damp it down. The President may say that it does not matter at the moment in the case of the motor vehicle industry because there is a booming export demand. I hope that he is quite sure that there will be no unfortunate

consequences on the motor expansions on Merseyside and in the North which we all want to see.
Is he quite sure that no damage will be done to any other industries, like furniture and household equipment, which have not so large and thriving an export trade? The Radcliffe Committee said on this point that as a result of the sudden use of hire-purchase restrictions, certain industries had become what it called "residuary legatees" in the economy and it was apropos of this point that it used these famous words:
This is no gentle hand on the steering wheel which keeps a well-driven car on the road.
The Chancellor may argue that these restrictions are so moderate that they will not have any effect at all. I noticed that at Question Time yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade defended some of the banking restrictions on the ground that they would not really produce any effect on anything. If that is the Government's argument I do not know what all the fuss is about. If they are to have some effect and if we are to hit, rather hard and suddenly, particular industries, I find the Government's priorities, as exemplified in the principal Order, rather hard to understand.
Will the President of the Board of Trade explain why a down payment of only 10 per cent. is required for jewellery, whereas one of 20 per cent. is required for refrigerators and sewing machines? Does this mean that the Government regard refrigerators as less necessary than jewellery? Why should there be a 10 per cent. down payment for domesic cookers, and a 20 per cent. payment for washing and drying machines? I cannot understand that. Further, there is a 20 per cent. payment for dishwashers and a 10 per cent. payment for sink units, baths and basins. What is the economic, social, financial or even political reason for these apparently subtle distinctions?
Now that these Orders are before the House, now that the hire-purchase debt has risen to over £900 million, and the principle of some sort of public regulation of hire purchase is admitted, by the very existence of the Orders, I wonder whether the Government should not be taking rather more responsibility for protecting the consumer and purchaser of


hire-purchase goods against the minority of rather dubious and rapacious firms which seem to have jumped on the band wagon of the hire-purchase boom in the past two years. On the whole it is the poorer and, very often, the less legally and financially expert purchaser who buys his household equipment on hire purchase, and there is a good deal of evidence that some of the old scandals in this matter are continuing, despite recent legislation.
I should like to mention some of the rates of interest which are now being charged. We all know what happens. A potential unwary purchaser is told that the rate of interest is 7 per cent., 10 per cent., or whatever it may be, but this very often does not allow for the fact that the price is partly reduced by the initial deposit and that the debt diminishes steadily over the period of repayment. Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that in this way interest rates as high as 20 per cent., 25 per cent., and 30 per cent. are still being charged by hire-purchase companies, very often to people of small means and very little knowledge of what is going on?
Some city firms—generally the smaller ones—are openly advertising and offering 7 per cent. to the public for deposits for funds which they say will be used for what they call industrial finance. I am advised by connoisseurs of this sort of thing that that amounts to hire-purchase trading. One is bound to point out that if these firms can offer 7 per cent. to depositors they must be taking a good deal from their customers, even after paying their own expenses.
I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman particulars of a case which has been brought to my attention. A bicycle was offered for sale for £22 10s. cash or £27 9s. by easy payments—in other words, hire purchase. If the purchaser bought the bicycle by easy payments he paid a deposit of £3, followed by £24 9s. paid back over two years. That meant that he paid approximately £8 in interest or £4 a year. Allowing for the diminution of the debt over that period, the rate of interest appears to work out at about 33⅓ per cent. When my informant protested he was told that

bicycles were always sold in that way nowadays and that the dealer could do nothing about it.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Nobody seeks to deny that these practices exist. I think every hon. Member will agree that they are extortionate and much higher than moneylending rates. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no attempt has been made to control interest rates on hire-purchase transactions, and that his Government between 1945 and 1951 made no such attempt? Is he now advocating that that should be done?

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman probably knows better than I that the Moneylenders Acts which set some maximum limits to some rates of interest in certain cases are still on the Statute Book. I was proposing to suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he might consider whether there should be some legislative maximum for rates of interest charged in hire-purchase cases. That is a suggestion at which we ought to look when we are controlling hire purchase in these Orders.
That is not the only sort of abuse for which there is evidence at the present time. There are also cases, of which particulars have been given to me, where innocent people, in spite of existing legislation, are invited at the doorstep to make a down payment, to sign a legal document and to wait for the goods to turn up. In one instance brought to my notice the result was the arrival of a television set which was extremely old and which did not work. When the purchaser tried to get in touch with the firm he found that nobody was to be found at the address in question.
In two other cases a charming individual—and the same phrase was used in both cases—called at the house and by the time he had left the unfortunate housewife had been induced to sign a contract which she entirely failed to understand, but which it was afterwards discovered imposed a very heavy debt on her and her husband. Yet there is nothing in the Orders which we are discussing tonight which will do anything to correct any abuse of that kind.
Do not the Government think that some more protection is necessary when this kind of thing is going on? After


all, since 1938 this House has recognised the need for some legislation to protect the customer in the case of hire purchase. Tonight we are giving approval, or not giving approval, to three new Orders involving Government regulation, and this House passed the Advertisement (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957, which was supposed to correct some of the admitted abuses. It is clear, however, that that Act, although it was published as recently as 1957, does not cover all the trouble. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) showed this very clearly in a speech in this House on 15th July last when he described the practice of a certain Scottish company which had succeeded in getting round the provisions of that Act.
Is the President of the Board of Trade sure that in the matter of hire-purchase advertising the 1957 Act is being effectively enforced? How many prosecutions have been started under that Act since it was passed in 1957?

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I supported that Bill when it was introduced. I do not know how many prosecutions have or have not been undertaken under that Act, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it has had a most salutary effect. It has led to a number of trade associations warning their members that if they went into this illicit practice they would be in trouble. The Act has had excellent effects.

Mr. Jay: This afternoon I read the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he supported the Bill, and I am glad to hear that the Act has had some effect, but it still remains true that the President of the Board of Trade has frequently in the last two years been asked how many prosecutions have been brought under that Act, and I have not been able to discover that he has given any convincing answer.
In view of the evidence that comes to one, it does not seem that even now the Government are doing anything like enough to protect the consumer from the more dubious members of this trade. I should have thought that, at a time when all the big banks have found it necessary themselves to go into hire-purchase finance, the President of the Board of Trade would find that many reputable firms would welcome action to clear up

and clean up some of the things which are going on. There are undoubtedly reputable hire-purchase firms in the City of London which would like some of these abuses to be corrected
If I may take the intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) as a text, why not have legislation setting a maximum at least on the rate of interest charged in hire-purchase deals?

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Speaker: I can see that the debate may wander wider than I should allow. I like listening to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and to the interventions in his speech, but I have some difficulty in seeing how in the discussion of these three Orders we can get into the realm of the necessity for other legislation. I should like to be assisted about that.

Mr. Jay: I see the difficulty, but I was led—

Mr. Nabarro: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair when I intervened on this matter. I did not recommend legislation to deal with interest rates on hire-purchase transactions. I drew attention to the impossibility of enforcing any control of interest rates in hire-purchase transactions and the fact that the party opposite never sought to do so because of that very administrative impossibility.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is under a misapprehension. It is my duty to keep the debate within order. My complaint was basically against the right hon. Gentleman, but I had to include the hon. Member because he got involved in it.

Mr. Nabarro: I am always sticking my neck out.

Mr. Jay: What led me on was the intervention by the hon. Member for Kidderminster before you had returned to the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I agree that it could be argued whether such legislation is or is not workable, but clearly we cannot argue that this evening. I fully agree that it was I who made the suggestion and not the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
I cannot help reflecting that it was very largely the hire-purchase boom of the last two years which provided a good deal of such substance as there was in the Government's electioneering claim that we had all never had it so good. A few months before the election, that hire-purchase boom was stimulated. Incidentally, some of the biggest Tory votes were in the areas where firms were manufacturing hire-purchase goods, partticularly in the motor industry.
Now the Government tell us that this hire-purchase trading has to be squeezed once again, as it was in 1957. If the President of the Board of Trade wants us to believe that all these reversals of policy have been purely matters of economics and have absolutely nothing to do with politics, perhaps he will tell us what the response of the electorate would have been if these Orders had been introduced not this spring but in September of last year.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to support the three Orders and I hope that I shall not be obliged to follow in close detail the fascinating remarks of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about the general economic position today. I do not believe that these Orders are in any way associated with a thought on the part of my right hon. Friends, or any Government supporters, that we are in a state of headlong inflation, to quote the right hon. Gentleman.
I define my attitude within the context of these Orders as being a general supporter of hire purchase, but with appropriate regulation as to the amount of the deposit and the length of time for repayment. I deprecate absolutely the less reputable hire-purchase transactions, involving the payment of no deposit and an indefinite period of as much as ten years for repayment. I think that those less than reputable practices have tended to bring hire-purchase arrangements into disrepute and prey upon poorer families, and notably families where the purchaser, be it the father or mother or any other member of the family, is a little less discerning and discriminating in the matter of precise contracts than he or she ought to be.
What I dislike about our hire-purchase arrangements—and this is emphasised by the character of the three Orders before the House this evening—is the constant change of Government policy. I do not address these remarks to my right hon. Friend with any political content; I do so much more in a commercial spirit. For many years, following the accession of a Conservative Government in 1951, we have had limited hire-purchase restrictions. They were eased, then removed before the last General Election, and they have now been reimposed.
It would be impossible for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to say how long the reimposition will last, but what I want to impress upon him, as being the Cabinet Minister responsible for trade and industry in this country, is that the constant removal of restrictions, reimposition of restrictions, off one minute and on the next, without any sort of indication to the House of Commons and the nation as to how long restrictions of this kind are to last, has a very unsettling and disturbing effect upon the pattern of industry and commerce. It has a still more damaging influence on large-scale production.
If my right hon. Friend cares to scrutinise in close detail the goods which are specified in the principle Order we are discussing, Statutory Instrument No. 762, the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, he will see that the great majority of the articles concerned are those produced in our factories on a bulk or mass production basis where the largeness of the production has a material effect and bearing upon the unit cost of output. Thus, the constant disturbance caused by altering—

Mr. J. T. Price: A jolly good line.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Member; it is a jolly good line.
My right hon. Friend need not take my word as a politician on a matter of this kind. He should consult the Institute of Production Engineers, for example, as being the best professional body in this country dealing with a matter of this kind, who will tell him beyond a peradventure that if we constantly bring artificial influences to bear in the form of Statutory Instruments on


the length of credit which might be allowed for an article as expensive as a refrigerator, of which the average cost may be between £70 and £100, the cost of production must suffer due to the uncertainties following in the train of the Order.
Therefore, I say to the President of the Board of Trade that, while I support these three Instruments this evening, I want careful consideration to be given by the Government to permanent legislation on hire-purchase matters in two respects; first, the amount per centum of the deposit; and, secondly, the maximum period for repayment. I should have no hesitation in saying that the proper deposit for a person to pay for any article, from a three-piece bedroom suite to a motor vehicle, is 20 per cent. If the person cannot afford to pay 20 per cent., let him go away, do without the article for a few months, and save up the deposit so that it is 20 per cent.
I say that a maximum time for repayment on any article should be two years. [Interruption.] I am sorry that my hon. Friend disagrees with me, but I say that it should be two years. That is the impression I have gained, if I may say so with due modesty, through wide commercial experience, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) does not possess, though he may have considerable legal experience, which is a different matter.
What I am saying is that if a person cannot afford to save the 20 per cent. for a deposit, he should deny himself the article for a few months until he has saved the 20 per cent. There should also be a maximum repayment period, in my view, of two years, because I think that after that period the dangers of depreciation or deterioration of the article outweigh the advantages of a hire-purchase transaction.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Does not my hon. Friend think that there are cases in which his proposal would be unfair? For example, a person who lives in a residential caravan is purchasing a home, and surely he needs a longer period than two years. For the person who buys a house the period for the mortgage is twenty years

Mr. Nabarro: With respect to those who like to live in caravans, I depre-

cate, in the social sense, turning caravans into permanent homes. I quite agree that a few people do it, but I am not prepared to seek to legislate for a tiny minority.
Caravans may be an exceptional case, but hard cases invariably make bad law, and in the overwhelming majority of cases a 20 per cent. deposit and a two-year repayment period is, in my opinion, appropriate. To avoid the continual disturbance to trade and industry by the on-and-off of this ministerial hiccoughing of which my right hon. Friend is guilty, this sort of dyspepsia manifesting itself on the Ministerial Bench, he should consider permanent legislation along the lines which I have suggested.
There are other aspects of the principal Order which I wish to probe. Since hire-purchase restrictions were last removed we have a new manifestation in the economy in the form of the personal loan schemes of the banks. One is now encouraged to go to a joint stock bank and borow any sum of money on a personal account to buy an article of equipment; it may be a motor car, it may be a refrigerator, it may be a bedroom suite, or it may be a caravan if the bank manager takes a view opposite to my own about caravans. It may be any one of a large number of articles. The bank gives the customer an overdraft and it gives him many years in which to repay it.
Is that a hire-purchase transaction within the context of this Order? Is it? My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade shakes his head to give me a negative. That is exactly what I wanted him to do. Indeed, I never ask him a question without first knowing the answer. I tested these matters, and my right hon. Friend has given the very answer which I wanted to be brought out.
There are two methods of hire-purchase transaction in this country today. One is through the personal loan schemes of the banks, which is a hire-purchase arrangement. The other is in the form of the transactions dealt with in this Order. But here is the unfairness: the banks' schemes are excluded from this Order, and, therefore, the banks are given a preference as compared with a hire-purchase house.
I am not allowed to talk about what is outside the Order, but I merely bring out this point as a contradistinction, and I underline the unfairness of this situation as it exists today, because in the last few weeks my right hon. Friend has taken two measures in connection with hire purchase, directly or indirectly. One is the set of Orders before the House tonight. The other is to require the banks to deposit 32 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. with the Rank of England. Did my right hon. Friend have his eye on hire purchase there? Does the hire-purchase debt of over £900 million take into account loans by banks for hire-purchase purposes? Again, I know the answer, but why does it not? The hire-purchase loan figure rose by £31 million last month.
If we are to legislate for hire purchase, and if the Government accept the principle Chat it is desirable to legislate for hire purchase, for goodness' sake let us do the job properly and not piecemeal and by half measures, because that is what we are doing this evening. Let my Conservative colleagues make no mistake about this. We are legislating for hire purchase through hire-purchase houses and retail shops, but we are not legislating for the alternative method which involves a customer of a bank obtaining an overdraft. There is a further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have duties in this matter. It is perfectly clear that in a discussion of an Order of this kind the discussion of alternative methods of stopping a parallel kind of transaction is out of order. The hon. Member knows this. I hope that he will not pursue it.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of Order, Sir. Presumably it is in order to point out what is not in these Orders.

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think so. It is in order to point out an omission from the Order in the context of the Order, but not in parallel fields.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have allowed the exuberance of my oratory to run away with me. I had no intention of doing so. I was trying to demonstrate to the House the inequity of this Order.
I want to put to my right hon. Friend that two years is the general period and 20 per cent. is the general deposit. The buyer on a hire-purchase contract referred to in the Order has to pay substantial sums in interest. He cannot claim the interest as a rebate of his Income Tax. If he borrows the money from a bank, he can. That is a further inequity to which attention should be drawn.
In other words, this Order is only partially efficacious and hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well to recognise that if we favour regulation in respect of hire purchase we should attempt to make our arrangements comprehensive and not discriminatory in character in favour of one section of banking and trade and against another section of banking and trade.
I turn now to specific cases in the Order. This is very important. We are all concerned today with the level of coal stocks, and I shall at once relate this to the Order. Hon. Members will have observed that Part I of the First Schedule to Statutory Instrument No. 762 refers to:
Space heating installations and appliances of a kind designed exclusively or mainly for domestic use, and parts thereof.
The minimum percentage of cash deposit required is 20. The maximum period for repayment quoted in the Order is 24 months. Many of these space heating installations and appliances burn solid fuel.
Item No. 18 is:
Cookers, including solid fuel cookers, designed exclusively or mainly for domestic use.
There the deposit is only 10 per cent. and the period for repayment is 48 months. Why should a modern, solid-fuel-burning appliance for space heating, often combined with a cooker and a back boiler, be subject to alternative deposits, in one case 20 per cent. and in the other case 10 per cent., and to alternative repayment periods, in one case 24 months and in the other case 48 months?
I hope that the Board of Trade will not argue with me that the best modern solid-fuel-burning appliance for the home is one which combines space heating, water heating and cooking. It is all part of one article of equipment, yet it is subject to two rates and to alternative


periods for repayment. I say to my right hon. Friend that he must take this Order back to his advisers and ask them to consider these points which, to say the least, are incongruous, especially in view of the interests of the National Coal Board.
The Sunday Express—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] A very good newspaper —on 8th May, on page 10—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that it accused me in its leading article a few weeks ago of cowardice, but I did not issue a writ against the newspaper on that account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not? Because I think that politicians ought not to be mealy-mouthed. Last Sunday, the Sunday Express carried, on page 10, a large advertisement by the National Coal Board. It is instructive, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade should immediately consider it.
The Coal Board, is, of course, responding magnificently to the pleas made from both sides of the House that, in competition with oil, it should make its selling policy for solid fuel much more dynamic. It has no better friend in this House than myself on that account. This series of advertisements is magnificent. This is what the Board advertised last Sunday:
Plan now for a warm winter with the National Coal Board's help"—
This is the advertisement. It is perfectly serious, it is a very good advertisement, and I compliment the Board on it. I shall hand it to my right hon. Friend in a moment, because it relates itself precisely to the Order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have made a mistake. I shall lay it on the Table—or I shall leave it on the bench.
The advertisement says:
The National Coal Board have arranged … to lend you the money. Terms are generous. No deposit. Only 5 per cent. a year interest. Two years to pay on loans of £20-£50. five years to pay on loans of over £50
These are solid-fuel appliances. They are central heating systems, back boilers, cookers for the home, yet this Order says —and I have quoted it already—that on all space heating appliances there will be a 20 per cent. deposit. The Coal Board says, "No deposit." The Order says that for space heating installations there will be 24 months in which to pay—the Coal Board says, "Five years to pay".
I am not attacking the Coal Board—I shall justify it in a moment. I do not attack the Coal Board, but I point out to my right hon. Friend that this advertisement appeared on 8th May, after this Order had been published. Mr. Speaker, you will see on the Order itself that it was made on 27th April. What is my right hon. Friend doing about enforcement? Does he propose to enforce these things? I do not want the Coal Board to be inhibited in putting in modern appliances. I do not want it to be inhibited. I want it to support my clean air legislation—[Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh at; it is a very serious matter. Furthermore, I want to encourage people to burn coal more efficiently.
The Board promises five years in which to pay, but the Order maximises the period either at two years, interpreted in one way, or four years interpreted in another. Here, however, is the nub of the matter—from whom does one buy the appliances? [An HON. MEMBER: "A flaw."] No, not a flaw but a nub, and a nub is different from a flaw. Who finances this? Does one buy these appliances from a retail shop or store? No, Mr. Speaker, it is financed by the Forward Trust, one of the Midland Bank Group. In other words, one law for the banks— no period for repayment, and no deposit; another law for the ordinary retailer in terms of the Order.
That is wholly faulty, discriminatory and equitable, and the President of the Board of Trade should now apply himself to this very important matter, for Parliament, if it does nothing else, should surely secure equitable treatment within the financial field for all agencies of every character in the support and financing of hire-purchase transactions.
Subject only to those few modest and relatively mild criticisms of my right hon. Friend, I will support these Orders in the Lobby, this evening, but I shall press him unremittingly—[An HON. MEMBER: "Press him tonight."] No, I cannot do so tonight. I should be out of order if I tried to do so. Mr. Speaker has already pointed that out to me. I shall press him unremittingly to do two things. First, to let us have permanent legislation, resting on a minimum 20 per cent. deposit and a maximum 24 months in which to repay for all hire-purchase transactions. Secondly, to see that when


that legislation is passed it shall be applicable to all financial agencies responsible for hire-purchase transactions, whether they be banks or credit houses, or hire-purchase houses, retail shops, or stores. That is nothing less than equitable, in my view.

9.52 p.m

Mr. George Lawson: I am happy to say that I agree so much with what has been said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I am only sorry that he is not going to come with us tonight into the Lobby, for there is so much with which he disagrees in these Orders.
I have a difficulty, and I am sure the hon. Member for Kidderminster will be interested to know what it is. He has described two ways by which one can in effect buy articles on the instalment basis. I want to describe a third way, and I am anxious that the President of the Board of Trade will pay attention and tell me whether what I say is accurate.
What I want to describe is a matter that affects Scotland. I have yet to learn that it has developed to any considerable extent in England, but it certainly has become a widespread practice in Scotland and many thousands of people have been affected in this way over a number of years. Those people are what I would call hire-purchase customers. They go to a shop that anyone would take to be a hire-purchase shop and they think in terms of buying an article or articles on the hire-purchase system. I would say that the Orders that we have before us tonight are clearly designed to cover this kind of person and this kind of transaction. Yet, I put it to the President of the Board of Trade that this will not be the case.
There exists in Scotland a practice that escapes these Orders—not a system by which the banks extend credit, but a system that is called a personal credit scheme. It is not operated by the banks, and it does not operate on a basis of 5 per cent. interest. It is operated on a basis of 2 per cent. per month compound interest. It is a system that operates without any kind of deposit being made, and the payments can continue indefinitely. Indeed, they can continue beyond the grave because, as I could show hon. Members, the people who are

called guarantors, who guarantee somebody else's purchase under this scheme, undertake—many of them quite unwittingly—that
 in the event of my liability not being determined prior to the death of the aforementioned or of any guarantor "—
the aforementioned being the person who contracted the obligation—
any sums due, whether becoming due prior to or after the death of the aforementioned or of any guarantor, shall transmit against the estate of the respective parties.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman. I hate to have to interrupt him, but I am obliged to confine the debate on the Order. We cannot treat it as a general discussion of methods in the hire-purchase trade.

Mr. Lawson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this to you. I am satisfied in my own mind that the President of the Board of Trade thinks that he is covering the kind of transaction to which I refer. The transactions are carried out in what everyone would think of as a hire-purchase shop. AD my hon. Friends from Scotland know this.

Mr. Speaker: That may be, but it does not put the matter in order.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out to you that, in Article 8 (2, ii) of the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, 1960, it is provided that:
'hire purchase agreement' means … in Scotland, a contract to which section 1 (a) of the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, applies or would apply if the limitation as to value contained in that section were omitted.
Is not my hon. Friend entitled to inquire whether a contract commonly thought of as a hire-purchase agreement in Scotland is in fact such a contract as he has indicated?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) also will be obliged.

Mr. Lawson: It is from that angle that I am trying to present the matter, Mr. Speaker.
We are confronted with great difficulties in Scotland as a result of these transactions, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look very closely into this


type of case. I did on another occasion call these transactions substitute hire-purchase agreements. I am convinced, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will say that my conviction accords with his wish here, that he is trying to cover transactions of this type. The extent of them is very widespread indeed. Yet they have hitherto escaped the provisions of the hire-purchase laws because it is stated that each transaction is not a hire-purchase transaction. The matter has gone to the courts. It has been stated that the transaction is not a hire-purchase transaction and that the article or articles concerned have been bought outright.
On the basis of the transaction not being a hire-purchase transaction, there is no written document given and there is no clear enunciation of the amount of money which will have to be paid. There are none of the protections which should be given by our hire-purchase legislation. There is no protection, for instance, in respect of the type of advertisement appearing in the Press. This is the kind of practice which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at. I want him to assure me that it will be covered.
The person or persons who purchase articles on the basis I have described do it under a system which does not give them the protection which the House of Commons has plainly intended that they should have. We in Scotland have sought ways to give people the protection which they plainly should have but which, as I have explained, they have not had under our hire-purchase legislation. We have thought that the Moneylenders Acts would cover the matter, and, indeed, only recently one case was brought before the courts on that basis.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That really must be hopeless, even on the ingenious argument of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. The hon. Member really must keep off the Moneylenders Acts.

Mr. Lawson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I take it that it is the intention that the Order should cover what we all have in mind as hire-purchase transactions or credit sales. I am not speaking of bankers' credits. I am speaking of what everyone, without going into the matter in great detail.

would take to be a hire-purchase transaction or a credit deal. That, I would say, is certainly intended to be covered by these regulations.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling) indicated dissent.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to cover this type of transaction I should be very interested to hear why not.
Those are, in fact, hire-purchase transactions. They are hire-purchase transactions, although by means of a device, which I shall try to describe, they are intended to get round the Hire-Purchase Acts. The device is the simple one of giving the person who wants to buy an article a voucher for the loan of money which is called a personal credit voucher. It is this personal credit voucher which is handed over for the article. The article is bought by the medium of this voucher which enables the dealer to get round the law as it is at present by saying that it is not a hire-purchase deal, that it is a transaction by means of personal credit, not given by a bank but given by the firm itself. In this way, right up to the present, this type of device has grown up. One firm which I could mention boasted last year of having about 80,000 open accounts.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member can tell us about the firm. I am sorry; I really sincerely dislike having to stop him, but this debate may wander over a very wide and irregular field unless I do. I am sure that he is entitled to ask whether a certain type of transaction is one within the meaning of the Order. That I understand. But I am sure that he is not allowed to describe, in this context, the extent of that particular transaction, or methods which he and his hon. Friends have attempted to set a check upon that which they regard as a malpractice.

Mr. Lawson: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall shortly describe the transactions I have in mind and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell us whether or not these will be covered.
A customer or potential customer wants to buy a television set. He goes to this shop and says, "I want to buy a set. What do I need to put down?" He is told, "You do not need to put anything down". In point of fact, it is advertised as "No deposit". "Our personal credit scheme is the best way you can do it. We only charge 2 per cent. a month."
Many people do not understand what that means. It is 2 per cent. a month at compound interest. The customer is told, "We cannot take the goods back from you. This is far better than the ordinary hire purchase". The person signs, gets someone else as guarantor and gets the article right away, without having to pay a deposit. Week by week a certain sum is paid and month by month the interest is added to the balance outstanding. If there is any difficulty at all he is taken to the courts.
Here is a transaction by which a person has come to buy an article on the instalment basis and who gets a voucher which enables him to get the article right away. He is not the partial owner of the article; he is the sole owner of the article. He is in debt to the extent of a certain sum of money plus the interest added month by month. On this basis, it is not a normal hire-purchase transaction.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this type of transaction is covered and, if so, how it is covered in the Statutory Instruments which he is putting before us. If it is not covered, I can assure him that a very large number of people will continue to obtain these articles and that a very considerable number of dealers in Scotland are evading the law.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Although a number of irrelevant points have been introduced in the debate, I think that the Opposition are trying to ask the House to annul these Statutory Instruments and to vote against them. I assume that they are panting to vote on them.
I do not think that the House can quarrel with the hire-purchase restrictions outlined in these Statutory Instruments. I take the view that anyone who wants to buy a television, radio or motor car ought to pay a 20 per cent. deposit.

That is reasonable and I think that most reputable hire-purchase companies expect their customers to do that.
I do not, however, quite subscribe to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, although I know that it is a well publicised point of view that hire-purchase restrictions should not be put on and taken off by Governments as quickly as they are. They are not put on and off as quickly as many people think. In my view, hire-purchase restrictions are a weapon of Government against potential inflation which should and can be used from time to time. They are easy to apply. They are applied in other countries, like America, quite frequently, and I do not think that they should be a weapon to be afraid of.
My purpose in rising is to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he is considering amendments to the Statutory Instruments, to the case of residential caravanners. They are subject to a 10 per cent. deposit with 24 months to pay. That means that a person who is buying a caravan to live in—there are people doing that at present—and who, in the past, has been paying, over three or even four years, about £20 a month, is now asked to pay £30 a month for his caravan. A rise from £5 a week to over £7 a week is quite substantial.
When one compares a caravan as a home, although a temporary home, with a house that can be bought on mortgage over twenty years, there is a special case for treating residential caravans differently. Whether one is able legally to separate them from the mobile caravans, I am not sure, but I think that the point that I have raised should receive further thought by the Board of Trade. Subject to that small criticism, I think that these three Statutory Instruments ought to receive the approval of the House.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) probably carried the good opinions of both sides of the House when he expressed some criticism of the constant changes of Government policy on hire purchase.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: No.

Mr. Cronin: That was the impression the hon Member gave the House, and I thought that he was very well supported by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the hon. Member had listened—he was, I think, asleep at the time—he would have realised that I said exactly the opposite. I said that it was a weapon that could be used by the Government.

Mr. Cronin: I was listening to the hon. Member with the greatest possible attention. It is clear that there is some new meaning to his speech that must have escaped me.
I would give full approbation to the view of the hon. Member for Kidderminster—

Mr. Nabarro: That is better.

Mr. Cronin: —when he expressed severe criticism of the Government's changes of policy. We have a most odd situation. Whenever there is an increase in production, there is automatically an increase in curbs on production. It is not as though this country has a particularly good record in this matter. We are not doing nearly as well as other countries in Western Europe, and our record is quite derisory compared with those of the Soviet Union and China. It is rather unfortunate that most of the economic machine under Conservative Governments has been running irregularly. Either the brakes are burning or the radiator is boiling over. It has never worked smoothly.
All of us on both sides of the House appreciate the economic difficulties with which the Government are faced—overfull order books, increases in imports and balance of payments difficulties. It is obvious that something had to be done, but I should like to know the reason for this curious timing. It was plain last year that these economic difficulties were imminent and would occur this year. The President of the Board of Trade may smile, but he will agree that the hire-purchase debt had reached an all-time record last year. There was a tremendous boom in the motor

industry, which is the industry chiefly affected by the Order. One wonders why the Order was not introduced last year if the Government consider it efficacious.
Obviously, the purpose was entirely electoral advantage. There can be no escape from the fact that in elections the Government have always behaved with a Machiavellian cynicism which must earn the reprobation of everyone who thinks about these matters carefully.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will answer a few questions when he replies. I should like to know why it was necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make dark hints in his Budget speech and why there was this period of uncertainty before these hire-purchase Orders were announced. Nothing but confusion and difficulty has been caused in industry. People did not know where they stood. Are we to continue to have economic legislation by hints and pregnant silences?
Will the President of the Board of Trade also give us rather more detail in his assessment of the economic situation which makes these Orders necessary? To what extent does he expect the total hire-purchase debt to be decreased by these Orders? To what extent does he think that it should be decreased? I hope that he will answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Kidderminster: what will be the effect on personal loans from the joint stock banks? The President of the Board of Trade should tell us more of the generalised effects of these Orders on the economy as a whole. How will they affect areas where there is considerable unemployment? This is a serious matter and the House should have specific reassurances.
Certain industries are going through great difficulties, for instance, coal and shipbuilding, which is in a considerable state of recession. The oil and chemical industries are reducing their capital commitments. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade looking puzzled. The steel industry does not intend to expand as much as it announced originally, and industries which are making heavy


capital goods are in considerable difficulty. How will they be affected by these Orders? I know that they do not apply to capital goods, but capital goods are affected by consumer goods.
The Orders are undesirable because the effect could have been achieved by other means. I do not propose to dilate on those other means, because that would be out of order. Surely, however, consumer consumption could have been attacked by measures to deal with the enormous boom, for instance, in Stock Exchange securities. There is an increase of £2,000 million in the value of securities, an enormous increase of consumer consumption. Something should have been done to deal with business expenses. They cause enormous consumption.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That goes beyond the Order.

Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was merely adverting to those small points en passant. I was careful not to dilate on them, because these are matters on which one could speak for a long time. If we want to keep in order, which is, perhaps, desirable in a debate of this nature, perhaps we should refer to the individual items of the Order. I wonder why there has been this savage attack on the housewife. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a bachelor, but we thought that the President of the Board of Trade might have had some restraining effect upon him. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that housewives are perhaps the hardest-working members of the community.

Mr. John Diamond: My hon. Friend is apparently suggesting that more restraint ought to have been laid on the Chancellor. Could he say what particular housewife the Chancellor made a savage attack upon?

Mr. Cronin: I think that my hon. Friend did not hear me well. I did not suggest that the Chancellor attacked any specific housewife. I used the word in the plural—housewives. [An HON. MEMBER: " Bigamy now."] I am sure

that all hon. Members have too much respect for the Chancellor's character to think for a moment of the imputation suggested by my hon. Friend.
Why are housewives to be the principal recipients of the hardships brought about by this Order? We know that they have these heavy burdens of keeping house, bringing up children and doing the cooking, and there has been little alleviation for them except by means of mechanical domestic appliances. These are the only rays of comfort which have entered the housewife's activities during the last few years. The difficulty about domestic appliances is that they cost quite a lot of money, and the only helpful factor has been hire-purchase, but the housewife has now been deprived of this.
I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is aware that washing laundry is a very heavy tax on the housewife's strength and her temper. He and most hon. Members must know what a heavy burden washday is in the home without an automatic washing machine and what a heavy burden ironing is without an electric iron.

Mr. Nabarro: And motoring without a Rolls-Bentley.

Mr. Cronin: That intervention is wearing thin. We have heard it before.

Mr. Nabarro: But it is a jolly good one.

Mr. Cronin: How does the housewife get on without floor polishers? Do the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade expect her to get on her hands and knees to polish the floor? Why deprive housewives of electric carpet cleaners? Have they to get down on their knees and sweep the carpet? These are matters which affect the most deserving members of the community. We know that refrigerators are one of the principal ways of avoiding waste of food, and that half our food is imported. Refrigerators also prevent ill-health, and food poisoning is one of the most common causes of ill-health in this country.
Why has the President of the Board of Trade made this attack on newly married people? Why are they to have these difficulties in obtaining furniture? It is a very heavy burden to be obliged to pay for one's furniture in two years, although that may not be obvious to the hon. Members opposite. These are heavy burdens which are being imposed on a

section of the community which deserves our support and sympathy. Anyone who appreciates the difficulties of the housewife and of young married people and, indeed, of everybody in this country except those of the upper income group should enter the Division Lobby with us on this side of the House this evening without hesitation.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I shall not detain the House as long as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has done, but I feel that I ought to make one or two critical comments on these Orders. In doing this, I am not unmindful of the extreme difficulty which any Government face when they try to contain the economy at a level which is pretty near the top. I would not pretend to say that the Government have no justification for these Orders, but there are some criticisms of the Orders and of the principle behind them which I should like to make briefly.
My own conviction is that the control of hire purchase has singularly little effect upon the total volume of demand, and my further criticism, which is perhaps even more to the point, is that it is, in effect, on one or two industries and can be exceedingly upsetting to them.
I am president of a chair-frame manufacturers' association, and, with my members, I have been through the ups and downs of hire-purchase restrictions being lifted and imposed and have seen what effect it has. Despite the fact that there may well be a case for using this instrument in the absence of any really well-proven methods of control in the existing economic circumstances, I doubt whether on balance the total amount of disturbance that these Orders will create justifies the economic advantage to the community.
I believe that there is a case permanently to set a minimum deposit for the purchase of various classes of goods. The community might well be advantaged if the Government did that. In many trades, certainly before the war and to some extent since, we have had goods sold not because they are goods but because they are goods sold on terms. That is very bad for any country. I would not be against the maintenance of a minimum level of deposits in respect of various classes of goods. Most people who want to serve the community in trade and industry would, on the whole, welcome such a provision.
If one accepts this concept, it negates the possibility of doing what the Government have been doing in the past five or six years. If I were to be asked where I think the balance of advantage lies, I would say that it lies definitely in maintaining a permanent minimum level of deposits in order to safeguard the trades against violent fluctuations and the public against exploitation.
I shall vote for these Orders tonight with some regret, because I appreciate that we are faced in the post-war period, like almost every country, with the problem of containing the economy almost at the top of the brim without having the proven means of so containing it. I am, therefore, prepared in these circumstances to vote for the Orders, though I shall do so with some reluctance.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: I can think of scarcely one sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) with which I did not profoundly agree, but there is perhaps one side remark which he made which I cannot accept, and that is that he is to vote for the three Instruments.
It is a good deal easier for us in the Opposition to carry the argument to its logical conclusion, but it is far more important than making party points to draw the attention of the Government to the real lack of feeling on both sides that these Orders are the right thing at the right time. There is a sense of unease that this is the right way either of curing inflation or of encouraging production or consumer demand. I want to ask one question and then offer three short arguments against the Orders.
First, I should like to know whether I am right in saying that the Control of Hiring Order has the prejudicial effect of preventing Members of Parliament who are fighting election campaigns from hiring loud-speakers if they wish to do so for a period of more than twelve days. Assuming that most of us campaign for at least fourteen days, and generally for twenty-one, we shall all be denied the pleasure of hiring a loudspeaker We may have to buy the wretched thing.

Mr. J. T. Price: All these restrictions will be off before the election.

Mr. Diamond: Such a thought had not entirely escaped me, and it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to indicate how long he will maintain the Orders, and whether Members of Parliament will be affected in the way I have suggested.
I support the hon. Member for Cheadle. I very much doubt whether this action is justifiable on the grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman will attempt to justify it—of controlling inflation at a time when consumer demand is pushing too hard. It affects only a small part of consumer demand. The fact that the banks themselves are encouraging borrowers to borrow in a fantastic and entirely unbanklike manner to meet their personal requirements, in addition to all the other credits open to many people, means that this action must be taken in its proper perspective. It leads to the conclusion that this is a very small part of the total borrowing and can hardly be sufficient to justify the claim that it will affect inflationary demand.
Both the hon. Member for Cheadle and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have said that these Orders will have a most prejudicial effect upon certain industries and production lines. They will inevitably cause increased costs through inefficient production, because the production lines will be over-full on some occasions, then under-occupied, and at other times running smoothly and efficiently. Anybody who is interested in the cost of production must know that the most damaging action which can be taken is to interrupt the free flow. I can only repeat what the two hon. Members opposite have said. They are substantial arguments against the Orders.
There are other reasons why I opposed the Orders. First, they make no provision for solving the problem of very harsh dealing. Many people find themselves at the receiving end of some very harsh hire-purchase deals. Having agreed to buy the goods, they find that they are subject to very harsh contracts, and there is nothing in the Orders which lightens their burden. The Government are not taking anything like a sufficiently serious view of that point. Further, the Government are encouraging borrow-

ing far too much. I am probably the odd man out in this matter. I have a very simple view of it, which I have expressed previously. I take the view that people should not buy things until they have sufficient money to do so.
That is terribly simple and old-fashioned, and I well understand that there are certain durables—such as houses, which may be bought or rented —which are subject to similar arrangements but where the lending and repayment go on more or less in perpetuity, in respect of which this system may be justified on economic grounds, but ordinary articles, which are part of one's desire to make life more satisfactory or easy, in respect of which people are encouraged to borrow in all sorts of ways both by banks and by hire-purchase firms, should not be bought in this way.
I am justified in saying this because, although there is a general belief that most hire purchasers pay up, and therefore hire-purchase lenders are encouraged to go on lending, my information is that the law courts are becoming full of cases of sellers trying to recover their money from defaulting hire purchasers who have no vice in them but have been induced by salesmanship, charm and encouragement of one kind or another to take on commitments which are greater than they can afford, for the simple reason that they are no good at adding up their total commitments. Many of us are not all that good in adding up our total commitments, which is one of the reasons why a certain profession which I know has always a good deal to do.
However, I am referring simply to people being encouraged, on the doorstep and in the shop, to undertake far more weekly and monthly and quarterly commitments than they can well manage. Frankly, I see only one answer to this, and that is some form of discouraging hire purchase not only temporarily but for all time. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that there should be a minimum deposit for all time.
There is no argument against it. It discourages excessive spending. It makes it impossible for the Government to upset trading by increasing and decreasing deposits at will. I think there is every argument in favour of a minimum deposit, which I, of course, would put far


higher than 20 per cent., though less than that, though substantial, on everything like a cooker which is part and parcel of the permanent and minimum equipment of a house.
In addition to a permanent deposit as a discouragement to hire-purchase buying, there ought to be some means— though I recognise the difficulty of it —of covering the weekly total commitments of the would-be hire-purchaser before he enters into yet a further hire-purchase transaction. The real difficulty is that the banks have no alternative method.
As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, there is no reason against having this additional method, no reason why the banks in their present ill-advised habit of lending to customers on personal account should not lend to the customers, the customers having said that they are proposing to do such and such and to buy such and such, and for the customers to buy the articles on hire purchase as hirers. Thus we get double borrowing, and thus we get a state of affairs in which the individual is encouraged, as I say, to get absolutely up to the neck in commitments of one kind and another which cannot be covered in the short space in which only he can foresee his income.
We must realise that there is a large section of the population which has, over many years, been adopting the habit of budgeting weekly. So much is earned each week; so much goes for the rent; so much goes for food; so much goes for insurance and old age. That is how the weekly budget is laid out. That means that among those who calculate in that way, when they are earning well, and earning overtime and are in a good job, the earnings which come in week by week are fully committed. Only the slightest recession in an industry is needed, it needs only overtime to be cancelled or the job to be lost for a few days or for a week or so—or, of course, for unemployment to arise—forthe most frightening difficulties to arise, which all of us know who have "surgeries" in our constituencies. Most of us have come across constituents in the most frantic difficulties of hire-purchase commitments because they have lost jobs or overtime, even temporarily.
I can see only one answer to that problem, and that is some form of accumulating total indebtedness, the total commitments of the would-be borrower, before he is permitted to borrow yet more. I deeply deprecate that the banks, which should act in a responsible manner, are so solely concerned with competing with one another to gain customers that they ignore their responsibility. It is because these Orders do not touch what is the very real problem, of which one can see the results in the law courts, that I am proposing to vote against them.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: From what he said towards the end of his speech, I would have thought that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was strongly in favour of the Orders. He said that he did not much like hire purchase and would prefer to do without it. Here he has a series of Orders which are at least likely to make the prospective purchaser think a little longer before embarking on a hire-purchase contract.

Mr. Diamond: That is not enough.

Mr. Gower: That may be, but the logical result of what the hon. Member said is that he should vote for the Orders.
I think that the House will wholly reject the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that the main motive for the changes in hire-purchase rates, as in some other things, has been political and electoral. That is an argument quite unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman.
He will recall perfectly well that, about a year before the last election, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were pressing the Government not merely to sustain but to increase the purchasing power which Government policy had succeeded in obtaining during the preceding twelve months. Indeed, all the pressure from hon. Members opposite during those twelve months was to increase the level of consumer expenditure. In part, the Government followed that course because the economic needs of the country at the time demanded that kind of policy.
The right hon. Gentleman also professed himself surprised that under a Conservative Government there was sometimes a


time when there was inflationary pressure while at other times the danger was of a different kind. He was surprised that the economy did not always run on an even keel. That is a very remarkable statement coming from one who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a Government who were calculated to produce a first-class financial crisis every eighteen months or so. We on this side of the House admit that in a country whose economy is as finely balanced as ours it is not susprising that at times there should be inflationary tendencies while at other times the tendencies will be different.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) that this is a weapon which should be used because it is flexible and can easily be applied. On the other hand, turning to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who spoke from his great commercial experience, to which he referred with such restraint, and with his quite extraordinary diffidence, surprisingly enough, despite his great commercial experience, he seemed to regard himself as incapable of any misjudgment of any situation and incapable of any mistake. In spite of his experience, I still disagree with him to some extent.
However, I accept and agree with his view that it is desirable that there should be some minimum deposit in hire-purchase contracts, and I think that that deposit should be fairly substantial and not derisory. I accept, too, that there should be a specified period for repayment. But I feel that he was too inflexible and too rigid in prescribing such a code. In some cases, two years may still well be a suitable period for repayment, while for heavier goods and exceptional goods—for instance, the caravans to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I have referred previously—another period might be more suitable.
In future, we should try to have a permanent minimum deposit on certain kinds of articles, while in other cases there should be a different deposit and a different time for repayment. This is not the kind of thing, however, which can be hastily conceived.
I certainly subscribe to the view that the time for repayment should not be excessive. I subscribe to the view that a person contemplating a hire-purchase contract should at least be able to produce a substantial deposit. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will not think it unreasonable if I take a view slightly different from the rigid code which he wanted to apply. The arguments we have heard from hon. Members opposite, including those of the right hon. Gentleman, should lead to the support of hon. Members opposite for the Orders. They have made it perfectly clear that they think that at present consumer credit is a little too easy and that in some cases people are led into hire-purchase transactions without due thought. Therefore, they should have no doubt about supporting the three Orders.

10.40 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I will not detain the House for many minutes at this late hour. I support the Prayers to annul these Statutory Instruments, for the many reasons adduced by my hon. Friends. But there is one specific question I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that he will be able to give me a clear reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) raised a matter which is of the greatest importance to many people in Scotland. The specific question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this. Will the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order cover the firm about which he has a great deal of information, a firm which we consider to be most disreputable in its tradings in Scotland? Will the Order cover the trading of that firm?
If the answer is "No," and it does not cover the trading activities of this firm, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the very passing of this Order will drive more and more people in Scotland away from the more reputable firms that all of us trust into the hands of this most shockingly disreputable firm? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that every weekend I —and I am sure other hon. Gentlemen representing Scottish constituencies— have constituents coming to me because


of their very great worry about what is happening in their dealings with this firm? Does he know that this firm gets over—

Hon. Members: Which firm?

Miss Herbison: The name has been given time and time again in this House. The name is quite definitely Napier's. I have no hesitation in giving the name, because every week ordinary decent people are taken to the courts of Scotland by this firm. The charges are 2 per cent. per month. If it takes three years to pay whatever is obtained from this firm, my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Gentlemen representing Scottish constituencies have to pay 100 per cent. interest on the cash price.
We on this side feel very strongly about that. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this firm's type of trading is not covered by the Order, he must accept the responsibility for driving more and more people into the hands of this disreputable firm and away from the more reputable firms in Scotland.

10.43 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): We have had a wide ranging debate on these Orders. I think that it would be fair to say that public opinion has understood and accepted the need for the Orders. In listening to the many vigorous arguments advanced in the House, I am still a little at a loss to understand why anyone should vote against them.
They are limited, but they are limited for one very special reason. The power the Board of Trade has to make these Orders is limited by the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959, paragraph 1 (b) of the First Schedule of which says that we can by Order provide
for imposing in respect of the disposal, acquisition or possession of articles of any description under hire-purchase agreements or credit-sale agreements, or under agreements for letting on hire, such prohibitions and restrictions as appear … to be required for restricting excessive credit.
Therefore, we have the power to act only for the purpose of restricting excessive credit and only in the case of hire-purchase agreements, credit sale agreements, or agreements for letting on hire. Therefore, while I listened with great

interest, and will study what has been said by a number of hon. Members, starting with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) himself, about interest rates and other practices, they cannot come under the Order, and could not be covered, as far as I know, under the legislation from which the Orders derive. Therefore, as the Orders could not have contained such provisions, it is not a logical ground for voting against them that they do not contain something that the legislation does not permit them to contain, and I have read out the only powers we have to make such Orders.
That gives rise to certain difficulties. There is the problem that has been raised by two hon. Members opposite about certain activities in Scotland. I can only say that, as I have just read from the Statute, our powers are limited to hire-purchase agreements and credit sales agreements, and both are defined. A hire-purchase agreement involves the bailment of goods, and I would not have thought that the type of transaction referred to was a hire-purchase agreement.
Whether it was a credit-sale agreement I could not say without knowledge of the individual case. A credit-sale agreement is a contract of sale of goods under which the whole or part of the purchase is payable by instalments. If the contract refers to a particular article, or certain goods, and the money is payable in instalments, it might be covered by the Order, but it sounds to me as though the transactions referred to—and I must speak without prejudice, not having the details—are more in the nature of personal loans.
That is where we get into a realm of very great difficulty, indeed, because an unsecured personal loan is something that is exceedingly hard to control, and the more the matter is studied the more difficult it is to finding a way of limiting unsecured personal loans—or secured personal loans, for that matter—without interfering with the normal freedom of the individual to lend and to borrow money. That is the difficulty—

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps, in answering my hon. Friends from Scotland about this Scottish matter, the right hon. Gentleman would use the Scottish rather than the English definition in his own Order.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, I have checked up—as I saw the hon. and learned Gentleman running through his book—that, in fact, the practice is the same. Although it may be expressed differently, I am told that the legal effect is the same.

Mr. Lawson: Could I suggest that if, in fact, the type of transaction we have described is not covered by the Orders, it is open to other hire-purchase firms to adopt this device and so escape altogether the intention of the Orders?

Mr. Maudling: I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman says, but I must make the point that it is not in the Orders, and could not be in the Orders because they go to the extent of our powers. If something were done to cover transactions of another character, it would involve legislation. It would not be in order to discuss that, but perhaps I could say that legislation to cover secured or unsecured personal loans is an exceedingly difficult task on which to embark.
This, of course, is relevant to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and others about personal loans given by the banks. Perhaps I could remain in order by saying that the difference is that one operates in the field of personal loans by restricting the amounts that the banks have available to lend, but it is not possible to deal with that in terms of an Order which deals in a different way with different forms of extension of credit. If I went beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I should be trespassing on your patience more than I should.
I must say that I find it difficult to understand the reasons advanced for objecting to Orders that impose certain minimum deposits and certain maximum periods of repayment. Apart from the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who made, I thought, a vigorous if somewhat peculiar speech, everyone else who has spoken has not only been in favour of the restrictions but has been rather inclined to say that they should be made permanent, and possibly even more stringent.
As I have explained, under our powers we cannot do that, because we can act only for the purpose of restricting excessive credit. It would involve legislation, but I cannot see why people

whose only complaint is that our Orders do not last for ever should vote against them, just because they are on a temporary basis. Surely, temporary action is better than nothing at all.

Mr. Diamond: Is there anything to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from taking these Orders away and bringing in other Orders which are tougher?

Mr. Maudling: That is the point that I am making—I can introduce Orders only to restrict excessive credit. The point that the hon. Member has in mind is not that there is excessive credit but that it is socially wrong. That may or may not be right, but it cannot be done under the present powers.

Mr. Jay: If someone took the view that there always ought to be a down payment on social grounds, might it not be thought that there was excessive credit when there was no down payment?

Mr. Maudling: I think the phrase "excessive credit" must be taken to mean economically excessive and not socially excessive. I think that must be right.
As to the degree of effect on the economy, here again there seems to be some disagreement. Some argue, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the effect would be very severe, and some people say, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said, that the effect would be very little. The expansion of the hire-purchase debt last year was of the order of £300 million. It is a pretty large item in the economy. But the measures that we have introduced —the minima that we have prescribed and the lengths of payment that we have prescribed—are very much in line with the current practice of the better and more reputable traders.
I would not expect the effect of these Orders to be drastic in any particular field. It is not possible to give an assessment in mathematical terms of what would be the amount of reduction or possibly the amount of further increase of the hire-purchase debt in succeeding months. Certainly these measures will exercise a restraining influence, although I would not have thought more than that, and I hope very much—and I see no reason to suspect


that this hope will be unjustified—that no industry will feel any severe effects.
Certainly in some cases that have been mentioned—for example, motor cars— there is scope for a substantial increase in export sales, since our manufacturers are having to quote long delivery dates at home and abroad because of the enormous expansion in demand. I think they are doing a magnificent job. They are exporting a very proper proportion of their present output. They can argue that as long as the motor car market in this country is so vigorous, the more they export the more that is imported to fill up the gap. So I think a certain restraining effect upon the motor car market will have a good effect on the balance of payments.
In the case of furniture, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, we have deliberately kept the deposit to a modest 10 per cent. I cannot help feeling that an industry that cannot build its prosperity on the basis of this degree of control is not a healthily-based industry. I do not believe that the effects of these Orders on the furniture industry should be in any way severe.
It has been said—and it has been rightly raised—that constant changes in these matters are difficult for industry. I think the number of changes that have been made in the past can possibly be exaggerated. But we must be realistic about this. Any Government would try to run its economy as close as it can possibly be run to the danger of inflation. We want the maximum production and output that we can have without going back to inflation and balance of payments difficulties. Therefore, we are always working on a very small margin indeed, and there will be constant need for watching out for possible adjustment in one direction or the other. It would be ideal from the point of view of productive industry for a steady level of demand to be guaranteed over a period, but that is not within the grasp of a country with our overseas trade commitments, and inadequate reserves and with all the difficulties there are in the international trade on which we depend.
A number of other points were raised. The point relating to caravans is interesting. We kept the deposit at 10 per cent. rather than raising it to 20 per cent. which I hope will be a help, but I will

certainly study what hon. Members said on that matter and keep it in mind.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the fascinating point about the National Coal Board?

Mr. Maudling: If my hon. Friend will give me time, I will. My hon. Friend made the point, if I understood him, that all hire-purchase transactions should be on the basis of at least a 20 per cent. deposit, and there should be no more than 24 months for payment. Then he seemed to be arguing the case of coal-fired appliances and saying that that should not apply there. As for the advertisements by the National Coal Board, of course, I cannot comment on them without looking at them. Obviously these Orders apply to the nationalised industries just as to any other person.
I think that my hon. Friend had better study both the Order and the advertisement, because, although he tells us that he always knows the answer to the question before he asks it, on this occasion he failed to provide us with an answer.

Mr. Nabarro: I told my right hon. Friend the answer. He is being a little less than just. I told him the answer and he listened to it with great care. In fact, the Coal Board is financing these arrangements through a trust, a subsidiary of a bank. That is in effect a hire-purchase transaction, but an evasion of what we are now discussing. I instanced it on the ground that it was quite inequitable that there should be two different methods, one controlled and one uncontrolled.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, I have dealt with that. I think the point my hon. Friend was raising was directed to whether these Orders were being evaded by the National Coal Board. To that, I do not think he gave an answer.
I think I have covered most of the points. Frankly, I do not know about the hiring of a loud-speaker by the hon. Member for Gloucester. I think the limitation in the Order is a maximum of 12 days in a period of 28 days. But, by putting two twelves together, one might make it up to 24, which would be enough even for the hon. Gentleman's campaign, I think. I hope I shall not be quoted on that in a court of law, if the occasion arises.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point about discrimination between 10 per cent. in the case of jewellery and 20 per cent. in the case of refrigerators, and other instances which both the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and I raised?

Mr. Maudling: I thing the jewellery one was the important one. Looking into it, I find that the 10 per cent. was the rate in previous years, and, in general, these particular periods and deposits are based on experience of practice in the trade. I think a longer period for cookers was originally based on the fact that, usually, cookers were sold over a longer payment period. Also, as regards the down payment in the case of jewellery, it is true, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said, that a good deal of jewellery bought is in the form of engagement rings and wedding rings, and there is, possibly, a reasonable case for easing a little the difficulties in those circumstances.
I have given this some thought. I was doubtful about it, but as in the past jewellery had been treated on this basis, I could not think of a good reason for treating it on a more severe basis, comparatively, on this occasion. That is the reason why it stands at that point in the Schedule.
Generally, on the discrimination between one appliance and another, it is based normally on the custom in the trade. I remember that on previous occasions the case of wash boilers and cookers was rather strongly argued by hon. Members who said that they should be given the special treatment which they are given in this Schedule, and which, of course, carries on the special treatment they had at the time the Regulations lapsed in October, 1958.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Will the President of the Board of Trade deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in respect of the differential deposit on the different types of solid fuel appliances?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that cookers have always been, according to the custom in the trade, sold on a longer term basis of payment than space heating appliances. That is, I think, why we have done what we have here, repeating what was followed between 1955 and

1958, and copying the practice of the past. Also, I think there was a considerable argument on earlier occasions that cookers and wash boilers were fundamental requirements of the home whereas space heaters were not to the same extent and should be treated differently. Those were the reasons in the past why they were treated exceptionally, and we have continued the same treatment for the same reasons on this occasion.
There was a certain amount of political argument from the right hon. Gentleman back to his old theme about our opportunist and cynical policy, but that was, I think, dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), among others. The right hon. Gentleman talked about—[Interruption.] It is a silly argument from the Opposition. Although the hon. Member for Loughborough said that he saw this coming a year ago, he said precious little about it at the time. During 1959, we were encouraged to go ahead and expand consumer demand and expand it faster than we did at the time. Now, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members opposite agree now that there should be restraint. They agreed with us then, they agree with us now. Why is the Opposition's motive pure and ours opportunist and cynical when we both arrive at the right conclusion in the interest of the national economy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] The restatement of the argument tonight by the right hon. Gentleman was even feebler than I heard it during the Budget debates.
We have examined the Orders with care. As I explained earlier, they are limited in scope, but they are limited by the legislation under which we are operating. Therefore, it is not fair to criticise the Orders on the ground that we are not doing things that we are not empowered to do.

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman has heard great expression on both sides that there should be a permanent minimum deposit. Will he, therefore, say whether, under these enabling powers, he is compelled to withdraw the Orders as soon as the inflationary pressure is reduced, or whether, in the circumstances, it is Government policy to let them stay as long as possible?

Mr. Maudling: I would say that we have power to maintain these Orders only so long as there is a danger of excessive credit. The question of imposing permanent control is an extremely interesting one upon which we should all reflect. My point is that it is not something which can be done under the Orders. Because we cannot do these things under the Orders, they should not have been criticised for omitting them.
As for the effect of the Orders concerning minimum deposit and maximum period of repayment, we have been

urged by both sides to go further than we have been willing to go. That is not a good reason for voting against the Orders. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the reasons of the party opposite for voting against the Orders, if it decides to do so, are as bad as the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman tried to give for the action that the Government are taking.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 172.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[11.2 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gourlay, Harry
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hannan, William
Randall, Harry


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Rankin, John


Blackburn, P.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman, Percy
Small, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Steele, Thomas


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crosland, Anthony
Jeger, George
Stones, William


Darling, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sylvester, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Dr. Horace
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Thornton, Ernest


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Wainwright, Edwin


Donnelly, Desmond
Mclnnes, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mackie, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Richard
Willey, Frederick


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, John



Ginsburg, David
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Prentice, R. E.
Mr. Mahon and Mr. Charles Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Hiley, Joseph


Allason, James
Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Arbuthnot, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Hirst, Geoffrey


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hobson, John


Barber, Anthony
du Cann, Edward
Holland, Philip


Barlow, Sir John
Duncan, Sir James
Hollingworth, John


Berkeley, Humphry
Elliott, R. W.
Hopkins, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Hornby, R. P.


Bingham, R. M.
Farr, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Bishop, F. P.
Finlay, Graeme
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bossom, Clive
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gammans, Lady
Iremonger, T. L.


Brewis, John
Gardner, Edward
Jackson, John


Brooman-White, R.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
James, David


Bullard, Denys
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Cleaver, Leonard
Goodhart, Philip
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Cole, Norman
Goodhew, Victor
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Collard, Richard
Gower, Raymond
Kershaw, Anthony


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Green, Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Cordle, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Leburn, Gilmour


Corfield, F. V.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.


Coulson, J. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Longden, Gilbert


Cunningham, Knox
Hay, John
Loveys, Walter H.


Curran, Charles
Hendry, Forbes
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh




McLaren, Martin
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, William


Maddan, Martin
Prior, J. M. L.
Temple, John M.


Maginnis, John E.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Ramsden, James
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rawlinson, Peter
Turner, Colin


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Rees, Hugh
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridsdale, Julian
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Mills, Stratton
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wade, Donald


Morgan, William
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wall, Patrick


Morrison, John
Sharples, Richard
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mott-Radoliffe, Sir Charles
Shaw, M.
Watts, James


Nabarro, Gerald
Shepherd, William
Webster, David


Neave, Airey
Simon, Sir Jooelyn
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Noble, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, William


Nugent, Sir Richard
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smithers, Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wise, A. R.


Page, Graham
Speir, Rupert
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stodart, J. A.
Woodnutt, Mark


Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Worsley, Marcus


Percival, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel



Pike, Miss Mervyn
Studholme, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Pitt, Miss Edith
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Pott, Percivall
Talbot, John E.

Motion made, and Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Hiring Order, 1960 (S.I, 1960, No. 763), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled —[Mr. Jay]—

put and negatived.

Motion made, and Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Hiring (Rebates) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 764), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled—[Mr. Jay]—

put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SOUTH WALES COALFIELDS (EMPLOYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Finlay.]

11.13 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies(Merthyr Tydvil): On 11th April I had to give notice that I would raise at the first opportunity presented to me the subject of the disgraceful treatment meted out by the National Coal Board to those employed in small or licensed mines in South Wales. I would say at the outset that I have no financial interest, directly or indirectly, either in the mining or the marketing of any kind of coal.
I wish the House to consider the terms laid down by the Coal Board. For the nine months from 1st April to 31st December of this year, the Board has decided that the output, compared with a similar period in 1959, must be reduced from 16 per cent. in some small mines to as much as 66 per cent. in others. This shows that the Board has given no consideration to the varying circumstances existing in these mines. I am very glad to be able to say, however, that in the South Wales coal field the Board says that output from deep mines will not be cut this year.
In addition to this disastrous imposition by the Board, it also demands that royalties of from 4s. to 6s. a ton be paid to it by these small mines, and that each licensee must deposit in a so-called "security fund" held by the Board the sum of £100 for each opening of these small mines, plus £10 an acre of the individual takings.
These are the crippling financial penalties which have been imposed—and I say deliberately imposed and irresponsibly so—on the small mines by the National Coal Board on the principle of "accept them or clear out". The Board has never done anything for the small mines. They have always been left by the Board to their own devices. Neither in the working nor the marketing of their coal have these small mines been helped by the Board in any way. These demands are made by a body which accepted huge opencast schemes without a word of protest which have driven thousands of miners out of the deep

mines in South Wales and other parts of the country.
I must explain that there are a dozen of these small mines in my constituency, where nearly half of the men employed in them have been written off already because of the conditions imposed by the Board. Furthermore, a very substantial proportion of these men will never return to the deep mines because of their age or because of injuries which they have received while working in them. The position is roughly the same throughout the whole of the South Wales coalfield. Miners who have been injured are already out of work by the hundreds in that coalfield, and the Board apparently can do nothing for them.
Among these small mines there are between 65 and 70 working anthracite coal, the scarcity of which has now reached famine proportions. But the Board is determined to destroy them. No distinction between these and the non-anthracite small mines has been made by the Board, although many of these produce anthracite of a very high quality. The Board officially admits the extreme scarcity of this type of coal. Two weeks ago a member of the Board's opencast executive said in South Wales that "there was a serious deficit of high-grade anthracite as against the demand in world markets and that the new projects for deep mines would not reach peak proportions in production for another two or three years or more. If this state of affairs continues, we cannot meet this demand, and the markets will be lost, possibly to oil, and if that happens, we shall never regain those markets."
This was said in an appeal to the Carmarthen Rural District Council to work anthracite by opencast in that very beautiful county. As I have said, the National Coal Board is in the process now of destroying nearly 70 small mines. This disastrous, contradictory, and ever-changing policy of the Board has characterised its administration during the last several years. At one moment, the miners are urged to sacrifice everything, even their negotiated agreements, in the interests of greater output. This they do, with the result that almost in a matter of months thousands of them are displaced from their collieries.
We are tired of being regaled by the Board with a spate of speeches about


uneconomic and exhausted pits, about so-called unforeseen difficulties which—I say again deliberately—could have been foreseen by anyone with an elementary knowledge of economics and a little interest in the mining industry. Is it any wonder that the leaders of the South Wales miners say that the industry as administered has destroyed the belief that coal mining any longer offers security of employment? They say that never again will their union be shackled by the obligation of persuading men to work in the pits. I know the leaders and every one of them knows the industry very well indeed. They are responsible men, whose lives have been spent in the mining industry, and no person or body of people is more desirous of seeing the industry prosper than they.
The Board's attack on the small mines is only one of many disastrous steps. It is time someone should say so, and in this House, and particularly those ex-miners here who have backed the Board all along the line since vesting day. The attack on the small mines is only one of many ignoble steps which have been taken in the Board's 13-odd years of existence. It has, as I indicated, destroyed the confidence of the miners and the mining communities in the industry. The Board has been far more concerned with satisfying such a Government as this than in making the mining industry a success.
When we talk about coal we are referring—I wish the Board would wake up to this—to the infinitely richest mineral in this world. Its potentialities are almost incredible. Some of us—I must confess to this—in the last forty years have tried to awaken the interest of the people, including Governments, in the vast riches known to exist in such coal as we have had in this country. Some of us had hoped that when the mining industry was nationalised we had broken for ever with the terrible wastrelism which characterised that industry in its long and its barbarous history, when for generations coal was regarded merely as fuel. Four-fifths of its thermal content was destroyed, and for the last forty years, that is, to this day—and I defy any coal man on the

Board to dispute this—not a tenth of its known values have been extracted for public use: not one-tenth. Aided and abetted by a Government such as we have these days, the Coal Board has made no contribution to remedy this.
I am told that at last—and I welcome this spot of news which has come my way—the Board is doing something about coal derivatives and their possible extraction. I appeal to the Board to wake up about this matter. Let it start with an inquiry into the services rendered by the coal industry as far back as the 1914–18 war when dozens of derivatives —by-products as we called them then— from anaesthetics to high explosives, from saccharine to rivers of paints and dyes, an almost complete pharmacopoeia and other most essential products were extracted from the coal mined by British coal miners.
I now make the awful suggestion that the Coal Board visits East Germany and the mines of the Hoyerswerda-Sprem-berg district there to see the vast and almost fabulous industries which have been built up on lignite, always regarded contemptuously by both the British coal owner and the British miner as that inferior brown coal. There, not only scores but many scores of derivatives have been extracted and many large industries have been brought into being thanks to the scientific exploitation of this lignite, or brown coal. So successful has that been, that in that district lignite is now known not as an inferior coal, whose geological development was held up as it were and never evolved, a coal which we treated with contempt, but rather as black gold.
Knowing of the tremendous work which had been done on this inferior brown coal, I asked for a booklet to be sent to me. This is what a German scientist says about lignite:
 When you come home in the evening"—
this could have been written by a Welshman; there is a touch of poetry about it and usually only the Welsh people know how to put it in words like that, and it is beautiful, even in the English language—
and switch on the electric lamp whose bulbs flood your room in warm light, do you know what is almost invariably the source of your electric power? The girl buying perlon underwear"—


here it could be nylon underwear—
in a department-store, does she know what perlon is made of? The man over there, nervously stroking his forehead, who takes a headache powder, does he realise what is the basis of many drugs? The discs placed on the gramophone, the candles for the Christinas tree, the soap with which you wash, the petrol for the motor car, the gas flame in the kitchen, smelting coke, detergents—all these have their origin in the basic material called lignite or brown coal"—
this is not Welsh bituminous coal, rich in an infinity of by-products, but lignite or brown coal—
the formerly despised peat-earth.
My time is rushing mercilessly on. I want the hon. Gentleman to have something to throw back at me. I am sure that he will do his best to throw something back. As long as it is nothing worse than a piece of first-class Welsh coal, with which I am well acquainted, I shall stand it very well.
The Coal Board should stop playing about with this great and rich mineral. Why do not the Government encourage the Board to extract these by-products, these derivatives, from coal? First, I suggest to both Government and National Coal Board that they should have the brains, understanding and desire to establish a national fuel policy, coordinating the coal, gas, electricity and atomic energy industries so that a planned fuel policy could be evolved. From this would follow far more scientific research into coal and the development of many other new forms of coal utilisation.
I am sorry that I have had to put the case so strongly this evening, but there is a limit to the patience of those who have spent so many years of their lives in the mining industry and who in fact—we might as well admit—know only that industry. We are getting tired of the continual frittering away of the richest of all mineral deposits in the world. I look to the Parliamentary Secretary to give me some encouragement so that we can carry on with some sense of security in the future.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) referred to the small mines in Wales. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay particular attention to them. I

gather that the small mines in England have reluctantly taken the view that they must accept the terms which are offered. The terms offered to the small mines in Wales, employing in the aggregate nearly as many workers as the small mines in England, are far less satisfactory. Whereas in England the cut back is by about 40 per cent., in Wales for some mysterious reason it is larger, despite the fact that the National Coal Board is not in the long run to decrease its production in Wales in a similar way to most of the other areas in the country.
I wish also to mention the amount of increased royalty being asked. There used to be criticisms of the old coal owners. If they had asked for a 600 per cent. increase in royalty, I can imagine what would have been said to them. I ask my hon. Friend to ask the National Coal Board to look at this again.

11.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The subject of this Adjournment Motion is unemployment in relation to the coalfields of South Wales. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) has travelled very far, indeed, but has dealt very little with that subject. However, just for a moment, I should like to deal with the subject of the Motion.
The fact is that there is practically no unemployment in the coalfields of South Wales today. On 14th March there were on the books of the labour exchanges only 1,050 miners, which represents about 1 per cent. Unemployment of miners in South Wales does not present a problem generally—

Mr. S. O. Davies: What about the disabled miners, too?

Mr. George: The disabled miners, of course, are included in that total. Had the hon. Gentleman dealt with unemployment, he would have known exactly the position, but it should be recorded that amongst the miners in South Wales there is only about 1 per cent. unemployment.
I turn now to the subject with which the hon. Gentleman actually dealt at length, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has just mentioned—the treatment by the National Coal Board of the small mines in South Wales. The Board was


given authority by this House to extract coal in Britain. It still has the sole authority to extract coal, but within that authority it has power to grant licences, and to those licences it has the power to attach any conditions that it thinks are best for the industry. The Board, in pursuance of the powers given to it by this House, decided that quotas should be a condition of the licences to be issued this year, and in the years ahead.
The initial purpose of the Board was to put a stop, if possible, to the anomalous position that while the Board was forced seriously to reduce output year after year, the small mines were, at the same time, raising their's substantially—

Mr. Davies: Only at the request of the Coal Board.

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman had more than his full share of the time available, so perhaps he will allow me to use the last few minutes he has left me to give him information that may help him.
The hon. Gentleman says that the reductions range from 16 per cent. to 66 per cent. Of course, they are nothing of the kind, as I shall show in a moment. He has also spoken of what he calls the terrific injustice of increased royalties, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Barry. The National Coal Board, and we at the Ministry, had the pleasure of meeting the small mine owners and listened to their grievances more than once. They never once raised the question of increased royalties. That is a fact. I repeat; never once did they raise that question as an injustice in any way—

Mr. Davies: Not with the Coal Board.

Mr. George: I therefore leave that question where they left it, and turn to the quotas. The Coal Board made up its mind that the small mine owners should play the same part as the Board itself was playing and should help the industry as a whole. It decided that the quotas should be reduced. In 1958 the small mines produced 2·6 million tons, and, initially, the Board said that their production in 1960 would be 2 million tons, and in 1961, 1·5 millions tons—

Mr. Davies: Why not compare it with 1959?

Mr. George: As I say—1·5 million tons in 1961. That was the Board's proposal.
The small mine owners resented the reductions and approached my right hon. Friend, who made it quite clear that the responsibility was the Board's and that he had no authority on this question whatever. However, he used his good offices, and further negotiations took place. In the end, the representatives of the small mine owners—the people whom the owners had elected to lead them as trade unions appoint people to lead them—came to an agreement with the Board, on behalf of all their members, to accept in 1960, not 2 million tons, but 2·2 million tons; not 1·5 million tons in 1961, but 1·8 million tons; and 1·7 million tons in 1962. The leaders of the small mineowners accepted these terms and promised to recommend their acceptance to their members. It is true that the vast majority of small mine-owners whose licences expired on 31st March have accepted new licences incorporating the quotas. In South Wales and Monmouthshire 19 have decided not to renew their licences for various reasons, but the majority of small mineowners in the country have accepted the terms of the new licences.

Mr. Gower: Under protest.

Mr. George: I am not aware of that. The hon. Gentleman may have more information than I have, but I understand that that is the position. Let us see why. The hon. Gentleman said the reductions were 16 per cent. to 66 per cent. Of course, they are nothing of the kind. It is true that the reduction in 1960 is 16 per cent. But within the 16 per cent. there is power for every National Coal Board Division to give a 10 per cent. hardship allowance. If there is any danger of hardship in a small mine the division is allowed to increase the quota by 10 per cent. This means that in 1960 if there is hardship there is no reduction beyond 6 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the shortage of anthracite in South Wales and the action of the "stupid Coal Board" in doing everything to prevent an increase in output. Had he known the facts of the situation he would have learned that the Coal Board in its agreement with the small mineowners have said to South Wales that where in


any district the qualities of anthracite in short supply are produced they will have an open quota to produce as much as they like. That is the agreement. The hon. Gentleman ought to have known that. There is a hardship allowance reducing the 16 per cent. by 10 per cent. and there is an open quota enabling the small mineowners to produce all the anthracite they like. The majority of the small mineowners have agreed to the position and have accepted the licences. The agreement was accepted by the mineowners' representatives. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must accept what I am saying. I have told him the arrangement. I do not care what document he has in his hand; that is the arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Coal Board is determined to destroy the small mineowners. The Board had an instrument in its hand by which it could have destroyed them all. It only had to refuse to renew the licences and they would have been out of business. But the Board did not do that. It drew up an agreement which was equitable to itself and to the mineowners. I must make it clear that I am not taking sides on this question. I rest upon the fact that an agreement was reached between the leaders of the two sides of the industry and that it is being put into execution.
The hon. Gentleman tried to impress upon the House that derivatives were the cure, that they would require millions of

tons of coal and would have meant the saving of the mining industry. Of course, nobody in his senses would suggest that any production of derivatives would consume millions of tons of coal per annum. That is not true. But the Coal Board is not so unmindful of its responsibilities as not to be looking into this matter and we at the Ministry are keenly aware of the problem.
My right hon. Friend's predecessor appointed the Wilson Committee to do the job which the hon. Member suggests should be done. That Committee is studying all the knowledge available of every form of derivative, and the use of coal for purposes other than simply for burning. The Wilson Committee will report soon and we hope it reports favourably on some of the systems which have been devised so far. But let no one try to deceive himself or this House that the manufacture of coal derivatives will play any great part in consuming millions of tons of coal annually, for it will do nothing of the kind.
A great deal of ground was covered in this debate, and great emphasis was laid upon the unfairness and injustice—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.